20th Century Art -- 2001-2002 Cultural Literacy Class Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:22:21 05/09/02 Thu
Author: Melissa Ciccone
Subject: 20th Century Art

Personally, I'm not a big fan of later 20th century art. I feel just because you publish something that's original, doesn't make it art or even appealing. The earlier 20th century painters I do admire, especially Grant Wood and Mary Cassatt's later works. I enjoy looking at a concrete rather than an abstract idea. I feel I get more out of a painting that way, since there's more of a definite interpretation, most of the time, for the painting. Although I do like to interpret abstract paintings, I much rather analyze a concrete artwork. I feel concrete art proves to me the enormous amount of talent the artist has, instead of abstract art that an artist could have created to take the place of boredom, then maybe labeled it something odd so people thought and came up with weird analogies about it.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]