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: 16:56:50 05/09/02 Thu
Author: Juan Lopez
Subject: 20th Century Art

I personally find a concrete work of art much more appealing than an abstract work. Some of the works from this era are very respectable and can be considered true works of art that required true inspiration and talent. As abstract and illogical as some of these works may seem, some if not most of them are worthy of being considered works of art. Artists like Picasso, Miro, and Marc show real talent and expertise in works like Guernica, Personages with Stars, and Great Blue Horses. Other works, on the other hand, dont show nearly as much skill those mentioned above. Some of the works from Josef Albers, Jackson Pollock, and Frank Stella seem a little too easy to be considered works of art.

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