The Map of Art History essay is about how art history uses disciplines in societies to represents itself through order and classification. From many observations and theories it considers three subject: first is the listing of fields in art history, second is the library system is for categorizing art books, and third is the plotting of space and time in art history from survey texts. Also in the discussion the writer talks about the geography of art history such as where does the idea appear from? Other questions he asked was how and why do disciplinary classifications aspire are global remain local? What are the consequences of our continued use of mappings that have their beginnings and backgrounds in geopolitical spaces that no longer exist?
Art can mean many different things to many different people and was one of the earliest ways in which man has expressed him or herself to others, whether it was through cave drawings or hieroglyphics. It does not begin or end with just drawing or painting, items typically considered art, or the many other recognized facets of art including architecture, drama, literature, sculpting, and music. My research is based on Vincent van Gogh art, and two art paintings that I choose to study is The Starry Night, 1889, and the second art is The Sower 1888. Vincent van Gogh’s is known for Impressionism, that occurs to us in these times, much more to affirm close links with tradition, and to represent
time period, social and political conditions, and other critiques just to name a few. All of these facts can be research and then applied to the artwork critique. This prior information can be used to help clarify certain aspects and create a deeper understanding of the artwork.
A great artist, Eugene Delacroix, once said, “What moves men of genius, or rather what inspires their work, is not new ideas, but their obsession with the idea that what has already been said is still not enough.” This famous saying, highlights one of the reasons art or even a single painting is so important. Art is more than shapes and colors; art brings about so much more meaning. It expresses life, history, beauty, and morals. It shows beliefs and contributes to the many reasons that make a human being, a human. Art represents past, present, and future. An ancient painting that was made over 500 years ago could have all the meaning in the world. It shows what life was back then, how humans have evolved since, and how humans should evolve in the future. Understanding a future is the understanding the past, which is why Sandro Botticelli’s famous painting the Birth of Venus, is so important to understand.
Throughout the Morelli reading, we are shown that education is the combination of classroom material as well as practical interaction. The basis of the Morelli article was to show the difference between being a connoisseur of art, or someone who takes art in and appreciates it aesthetically, and being an actual art historian practicing in the field. The concept that differentiates between these two ways of looking at art is that when one is an art historian, he or she examines every aspect and factor that is responsible in the making of the work of art. This means that an art historian will focus more on the methodology of how and/or why the piece exists from the basis of theories such as an artist’s biography, the cultural history surrounding the piece, or others such as the psychological analysis of the artist or the influence of social movements such as Marxism or feminism. This typically requires a more in depth analysis than that of a connoisseur, and one based on more textual research. A connoisseur examines the art itself in the physical aspect: the techniques, brushstroke, texture, form, composition, etc. Throughout this article, one may find most fascinating the aspect that in looking at in varying perspectives such as both a connoisseur and as an art historian is a ben...
Throughout the text, Berger illustrates the different types of arts. Each one is a perfect example of the phrase “Use your own interpretation.” If looked at closely, one gets different ideas and understandings than others of the same image. Another way that paintings are interpreted or misinterpreted is through reproductions. Reproducing original pieces of art has been a large controversy as well, even a “political issue,” which is discussed by Berger.
Understanding the importance of historical context is just as important as understanding the artist’s intent. The culture in which an artist created his work bears an immeasurable effect on his work. Appreciating the historical context helps ensure the student truly values the art piece he is viewing.
Art history, similar to many other subjects, requires an introductory textbook. Its function should be to expose the new student to the foundations of art, such as the elements, principles, and historical contexts. Past introductory art history books, however, have severely limited the student’s knowledge and comprehension of what constitutes as art by focusing solely on European works. In doing so, the texts only depict one type of aesthetic standards and the new student may become disinterested with art in general because he or she does not agree with that particular standard. That person might also feel alienated with the lack of women and minority artists included alongside the traditional European male artist.
Georges Didi-Huberman is critical of the conventional approaches towards the study of art history. Didi-Huberman takes the view that art history is grounded in the primacy of knowledge, particularly in the vein of Kant, or what he calls a ‘spontaneous philosophy’. While art historians claim to be looking at images across the sweep of time, what they actually do might be described as a sort of forensics process, one in which they analyze, decode and deconstruct works of art in attempt to better understand the artist and purpose or expression. This paper will examine Didi-Huberman’s key claims in his book Confronting Images and apply his methodology to a still life painting by Juan Sánchez Cotán.
When analyzing artwork, in any form, there are often times social contexts in which can be interpreted. Not always does the history behind the painting need to be revealed to fully understand the concept of the artwork, yet it is helpful in determining if the artwork is truthful in its representation. Although in analyzing artwork it is likely that there are drawbacks to considering the social context. To illustrate this point, I'm going to use the visual arts as my medium of choice. Understanding the social context can be an important tool. An advantage of knowing the history of the painting or sculpture can really enrich our knowledge, being in the 21st century, about some of the social periods from previous times. It can demonstrate how traditions were carried out, how they had an impact on the different social classes. It's a visual teaching aid of a sort. Even in the time period of which the artwork was created can be used as a tool to show how the life was in different parts of the world. It was also used as a hammer in the realist movement to show the upper classes that life for the poor was horrible. The visual arts is the only medium in which the pictorial image creates a universal language in which anyone, regardless of nationality or social class can interpret. The text which is created by this language often creates a context which is left open to interpretation. Contexts are created by the artist, critics, judges, the public, essentially, any one who views the work and forms an opinion relating to it. The contexts stem from subject or content of an artwork, and are usually facts regarding the content. Yet, the contexts almost always have backgrounds themselves, therefore making the original contexts, texts. This will be more clearly illustrated later. The chain is seeming to be a never ending process. There are always more conditions to the previous ones. All context, therefore, is in itself, textual. This concept of all context in itself textual is a post-structuralist strategy. A man named Derrida is a man who has developed this idea that the post-structuralist concept of every statement made, can be interpreted in infinite ways, with each interpretation triggering a range of subjective associations. Every statement has an association, therefore it's a sort of domino effect.
Rather take other courses that are less theory based and more productive to help them improve their skills in art. It is important to learn the past history about original artists and their work to get inspiration from but if one’s style of art is different from that than what’s the point of taking that history course? New York's Museum of Modern Art in 1929, avant-garde art gained importance in US, helped by Mondrian and George Grosz, who were escaping the progress of Nazism. Relentlessly, the principles of pioneer craftsmanship wound up fundamental social presumptions for Americans situated toward the humanities. Also, she claims that the most important question about art is what lasts and why does it last? Maybe it is important to know the answers of those questions but art shouldn’t be questionable. Every art piece is important in its own way despite the fact of how long it lasted or not. If an art piece doesn’t lasts, it doesn’t mean it's not as important as the others. It must be important for someone which is not seen by other
When visiting an art museum, there could be many thoughts that can run through someone’s mind. One can contemplate the tale that the artist is trying to convey while others can discuss the impact the piece has in term of aesthetics. And people continues to walk around and observing different piece, a thought occurs and questions your logic and reasoning. Why are any of these pieces considered as art? This is not a questioning of the quality of the piece, the mere presence at the measure demonstrates that it is certainly fine art. The question is why is it general called art? Looking past the creative imagery and aesthetic themes, the piece is just ink on paper or shaped clay or any variation on a thing. So is piece of art just a mere thing? As written in the Origin of the Work of Art, Martin Heidegger would state that it’s not a simply put. Some of the subjects that Heidegger discusses range from the origin of the essential of art to the interpretation of things.
In my point of view people often separate academics and the arts, believing that people often lean towards one or the other. I was among those people until I enrolled myself in AP Art History, where just its name itself disproves the statement above. It’s a common misconception that in order to truly understand art you must be an artist yourself. However, Art History fulfills the analytical side of an individual along with the admiration of artworks. With Art History’s unique combination I believe that teaching this subject would fulfill the intellectual mind by giving satisfaction both academically and artistically.
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 one's self. Every artist puts a piece of his or herself into their artwork. Who really is to determine what that work of art was meant to express?