Greenberg argues that modernism in painting does not represent a radical rupture with representational painting but rather is a continuation of the evolution of pictorial art. He also states that modernism is a by-product of the process of self-critism. Modernist painters tried to stress what was unique to painting . In exploring this "uniqueness" they experimented with eliminating the decorative elements from the picture plane. One of the remaining unique features for the artists was the flatness of the picture plane and a move away from the sculptural aspects of the traditional painting methods.
Below I have three artists discussed trying to show that they evolved from traditional painting to modernism through the process of critical thinking.
Edouard Manet ( french painter and printmaker) studied under an academic painter of historical paintings, Thomas Couture and in his spare time he copied the old masters in the Louvre. His style evolved into the modern because he started to think critically about his painting. He started experimenting with the arraingement of paint areas on a canvas over and above its function as representation. He became known for his loose brush strokes, simplification of details and the suppression of traditional tones.
Paul Cezanne (French Painter) started to question the role of art as a representation of religious thought, historical representation, and a status symbol for the rich and powerful elite. He decided to paint people, things and events around him. This evolution was a direct result of critically thinking about the role of his art. He became interested in the simplification of the naturally occurring forms to their geometric essentials. He wanted "to treat nature by the cyclinder, the sphere, the cone etc...". His paintings became flat with very little sculptural aspects.
Wassily Kandisky ( Russian painter and art theorist) is credited with painting the first modern abstract works. He started painting studies (life-drawings and anatomy) at the age of thirity after becoming a successful lawyer and teacher. His creation of purely abstract work followed a long period of development and maturation of intense theoretical thought. Kandinsky thought that a true artist was at a lonely place leading the way into the future. I doubt that the old masters felt this way.
These artists ( along with many others) achieved " modernism" because they thought critically about what they were doing with their art. The aspects of their art that were modern are the departures from the decorative, sculptural, and the traditional. These new and enlightened artists were not impressed with the "tricks of technique". However they all learned them at first.
I agree with the arguement that modern art is a continuation of the past. My own experience as an artist is one of evolving. I look on this evolution as a natural progression. I believe that it is a good and helpful experience to learn the basics of art (drawing, perspective, color, shading, design, etc...) in order to develop as an artist. Critical thinking is essential to art. There has never been a time when the past has not shaped the present and the future. It is impossible nor desireable to escape the influence of the traditonal art of the past. Modernism emerged because of critical thinking and a desire to use art as commentary. Greenberg said it well: "Nothing could be futher from the authentic art of our time than the idea of a rupture of continuity". Art is-among other things- continuity, and unthinkable without it.
I think that there is a link between the advances in the sciences (especially Physics) and art. This was touched on by Greenberg in this article. Winn Becton
Friday, September 25, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
Grades
Hi all,
Grades for written assignment should be in your emails.
Let me know if there are any questions.
Re-edit is allowed until next written assignment deadline
Take care
Thursday, September 17, 2009
1st posting Modernist Painting Clement Greenberg/Peter Selz
1st posting Greenberg Moderism / Selz Gestural Abstract
Modernism used art to call attention to art, and Clement Greenberg was an influential American art critic closely associated with Modern art in the United States. In particular, he promoted the abstract expressionist movement. Greenberg emphasized the self-criticism of Modernism grows out of, but not the same thing as, the criticism of the Enlightenment. Enlightenment criticized from the outside, the way criticism in its accepted sense does; Modernism criticizes from the inside, through the procedures themselves of that which is being criticized. Greenberg believed that “modern paintings produced self criticism”. Greenberg shown this to be true when he expressed that modernism is in fact an extension of traditional painting, flatness was significant in it own right. The task of self-criticism became to eliminate from the specific effects of each art any and every effect that might conceivably be borrowed from or by the medium of any other art. Thus would each art being rendered “pure”, and in its “purity” find the guarantee of its standard of quality as well as its independence. “Purity” meant self-definition, and the enterprise of self-criticism in the arts became one of self-definition with a vengeance.
Modernism under these same limitations came to be regarded as positive factors, and was acknowledged openly, Manet’s became the first Modernist pictures by virtue of the frankness with which they declared the flat surfaces on which they were painted. The impressionists in Manet’s wake, abjured underpainting and glazes, to leave the eye under no doubt as to the fact that the colors they used were made of paint that came from tubes or pots, Edouard Manet’s “Berthe Morisot with a Fan, 1872”. Paul Cezanne had an entirely new vivid sense relating to flatness as in “Still life with plaster cupid, 1895”. Cezanne sacrificed verisimilitude, or correctness, in order to fit his drawing and design more explicitly into the rectangular shape of the canvas. It was the stressing of the flatness of the surface that remained. Flatness alone was unique and exclusive to pictorial art.
There are so many artists that follow many different ways from different generations of inspiration such as Helen Frankenthaler, belonging to the second generation of abstract expressionists, was impressed by Pollock’s technique of pouring paint directly onto the canvas and originated a stain-painting technique by causing light-colored pigments to flow directly onto primed canvas, integrating color and support in a single unit. Her flat surfaces and stain method and her alliance with Clement Greenberg’s formalist theories and advocacy of what the critic called “post-painterly abstraction” established her as the antecedent of color-field painting. Although all of these artist have different interpreted styles and genres of artistry they all come together at a happy medium, what I mean is that they all have different descriptions of what they consider to be Modernist or criticizing artistry, it still leads to the expression of the artist in an abstract way, the artistry tells the story. The criticism was just that of what the painting, or the flatness of the objective being created showed.
There was a physician turned painter by the name of Alberto Burri, who made paintings out of tattered sacks to which he applied trickles of red paint, recalling the blood-stained bandages of war victims. He worked with a great variety of materials: burned wooden sheets, industrial plastics, and battered tin plates. Although these items weren’t of paint, they still told a story just as all the other artists mentioned earlier. In conclusion Modernist Painting/Criticism and Gestural Abstract are one in the same, what ever the artist has created speaks for itself, not necessarily the personal opinion of the artist. I found this statement to be true “both traditional and new structures are no longer valid” when an artist takes a risk and assume responsibility for the works done and allow them to just be “justified”, then Modernism/ Criticism and Gestural Abstract will merely be a term of endearment.
Modernism used art to call attention to art, and Clement Greenberg was an influential American art critic closely associated with Modern art in the United States. In particular, he promoted the abstract expressionist movement. Greenberg emphasized the self-criticism of Modernism grows out of, but not the same thing as, the criticism of the Enlightenment. Enlightenment criticized from the outside, the way criticism in its accepted sense does; Modernism criticizes from the inside, through the procedures themselves of that which is being criticized. Greenberg believed that “modern paintings produced self criticism”. Greenberg shown this to be true when he expressed that modernism is in fact an extension of traditional painting, flatness was significant in it own right. The task of self-criticism became to eliminate from the specific effects of each art any and every effect that might conceivably be borrowed from or by the medium of any other art. Thus would each art being rendered “pure”, and in its “purity” find the guarantee of its standard of quality as well as its independence. “Purity” meant self-definition, and the enterprise of self-criticism in the arts became one of self-definition with a vengeance.
Modernism under these same limitations came to be regarded as positive factors, and was acknowledged openly, Manet’s became the first Modernist pictures by virtue of the frankness with which they declared the flat surfaces on which they were painted. The impressionists in Manet’s wake, abjured underpainting and glazes, to leave the eye under no doubt as to the fact that the colors they used were made of paint that came from tubes or pots, Edouard Manet’s “Berthe Morisot with a Fan, 1872”. Paul Cezanne had an entirely new vivid sense relating to flatness as in “Still life with plaster cupid, 1895”. Cezanne sacrificed verisimilitude, or correctness, in order to fit his drawing and design more explicitly into the rectangular shape of the canvas. It was the stressing of the flatness of the surface that remained. Flatness alone was unique and exclusive to pictorial art.
There are so many artists that follow many different ways from different generations of inspiration such as Helen Frankenthaler, belonging to the second generation of abstract expressionists, was impressed by Pollock’s technique of pouring paint directly onto the canvas and originated a stain-painting technique by causing light-colored pigments to flow directly onto primed canvas, integrating color and support in a single unit. Her flat surfaces and stain method and her alliance with Clement Greenberg’s formalist theories and advocacy of what the critic called “post-painterly abstraction” established her as the antecedent of color-field painting. Although all of these artist have different interpreted styles and genres of artistry they all come together at a happy medium, what I mean is that they all have different descriptions of what they consider to be Modernist or criticizing artistry, it still leads to the expression of the artist in an abstract way, the artistry tells the story. The criticism was just that of what the painting, or the flatness of the objective being created showed.
There was a physician turned painter by the name of Alberto Burri, who made paintings out of tattered sacks to which he applied trickles of red paint, recalling the blood-stained bandages of war victims. He worked with a great variety of materials: burned wooden sheets, industrial plastics, and battered tin plates. Although these items weren’t of paint, they still told a story just as all the other artists mentioned earlier. In conclusion Modernist Painting/Criticism and Gestural Abstract are one in the same, what ever the artist has created speaks for itself, not necessarily the personal opinion of the artist. I found this statement to be true “both traditional and new structures are no longer valid” when an artist takes a risk and assume responsibility for the works done and allow them to just be “justified”, then Modernism/ Criticism and Gestural Abstract will merely be a term of endearment.
Monday, September 14, 2009
This winter do some still life
By the way - a couple words were omitted from the beginning of the chapter I gave you on still life.
Here are the first sentences on the chapter:
"This winter do some still life, and I don't mean pretty little things like iridescent glass. Do some still life because you cannot tell a story about it - paint something that isn't anything until it is painted."
Take a look at it again - it might be usseful when you are working on the still life project
Reminder: it is due this Saturday
And something related:
It's from this post :
"...when I was an art student, I was stuck not knowing what to paint. I picked up 2 rolls of toilet paper, put them in a "not so mundane" way and started to paint. My tutor saw and said it's very "Morandi..." Click here for the rest of post.
Giorgio Morandi:
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Light. Traditional Painting. Still Lives.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
in with the group...finally
hi all,
professor Hagit thanks for taking time out Sat to help me get on board with everyone else.
thxs, again.
cynthia/cece
professor Hagit thanks for taking time out Sat to help me get on board with everyone else.
thxs, again.
cynthia/cece
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Modernist painting
Modernism in art began during the second half of the 19th century and extended into most of the 20th. Greenberg identifies modernism as “the use of characteristic methods of a discipline to criticize the discipline itself, not in order to subvert it but in order to entrench it more firmly in its area of competence.” He explained how many artists style of art has changed from more traditional to match a certain facilities, make self-criticisms of the works. Modernist painting uses the painting itself to call attention to painting. Modernism created new stream which artists are “freedom of expression” as referring to the philosophy of modern art. Edouard Manet, Paul Cezanne, and Jacques-Louis David are three artists who evolved from Traditional painting to Modernism.
Édouard Manet is the first modernist painter, and that modernism in art originated in the 1860s. He was interested in exploring new subject matter, new painterly values, and new spatial relationships. Pigment attributes flatness surface, support shape that is refuse by traditional painting are reasserted by him. Manet's became the first Modernist pictures by virtue of frankness which they claim the plane on which they were painted. The Impressionists, in the form of Manet, abjured under painting and Glazes, leaving the eye is no doubt to the fact that they used the colors that made paint from tubes or pots.
Greenberg believed Modernism provided a critical commentary on experience. Modernism reasserts the two-dimensionality of the picture surface. It required the viewer to see the picture first as a painting surface and only then as a picture. For example, in Still Life with Plaster Cupid, it is the subjective view that constructs the space. Cupid is white and scattered trees, red, yellow, and green. Three apples at the foot of Cupid continued flow round the body; others in the food strive to build up to a head. Cézanne's attempt to render the correct vision of human vision is subjective, continuous, and notices of memory.
By contrasting the movements of the energetic but definitely control, and swooning disciples, through the distribution of light and dark mark, David transforms what might have been only a fashionable picture of martyrdom to a clarion call for nobility and self-control even in the face of death. The man was handed the poison Socrates could not even bear to look at the face Socrates. Men are considering the opposite direction. His hands cover his eyes. He almost seems embarrassed to be handed the poison Socrates.
Modernism is not radically breaking away or release from all that is old and established in the art. In modernism, artists use color, shape, and line to make their paintings become special. People can find out the difference meaning according to their knowledge and experience.
Bonus: Self criticism is the way the artists display their thought on their paintings. Each artist has a different way to express so it determines their style and value.
Édouard Manet is the first modernist painter, and that modernism in art originated in the 1860s. He was interested in exploring new subject matter, new painterly values, and new spatial relationships. Pigment attributes flatness surface, support shape that is refuse by traditional painting are reasserted by him. Manet's became the first Modernist pictures by virtue of frankness which they claim the plane on which they were painted. The Impressionists, in the form of Manet, abjured under painting and Glazes, leaving the eye is no doubt to the fact that they used the colors that made paint from tubes or pots.
Greenberg believed Modernism provided a critical commentary on experience. Modernism reasserts the two-dimensionality of the picture surface. It required the viewer to see the picture first as a painting surface and only then as a picture. For example, in Still Life with Plaster Cupid, it is the subjective view that constructs the space. Cupid is white and scattered trees, red, yellow, and green. Three apples at the foot of Cupid continued flow round the body; others in the food strive to build up to a head. Cézanne's attempt to render the correct vision of human vision is subjective, continuous, and notices of memory.
By contrasting the movements of the energetic but definitely control, and swooning disciples, through the distribution of light and dark mark, David transforms what might have been only a fashionable picture of martyrdom to a clarion call for nobility and self-control even in the face of death. The man was handed the poison Socrates could not even bear to look at the face Socrates. Men are considering the opposite direction. His hands cover his eyes. He almost seems embarrassed to be handed the poison Socrates.
Modernism is not radically breaking away or release from all that is old and established in the art. In modernism, artists use color, shape, and line to make their paintings become special. People can find out the difference meaning according to their knowledge and experience.
Bonus: Self criticism is the way the artists display their thought on their paintings. Each artist has a different way to express so it determines their style and value.
its an essay. question 1.
In Clement Greenberg's exposition "Modernist Painting", Greenberg asserts that there is no definitive break from the Modernist artists methods and the traditional ways of the Old Masters, rather, that Modernist painters either built upon and/or broke down the theories and practices of the past in the name of progress. He theorizes, correctly so, that without the well established concepts and techniques of the latter-day academic artists, Modernist art would be hollow and without meaning, and lack the poignancy required to advance and maintain the movement. Modern art advanced from and through traditional art in an act of self-preservation, to adjust an outdated value system and reexamine what the art experience truly is. In this regard, I wholeheartedly agree with Greenberg's position; art may be marked and categorized by movements and periods, but it is constantly evolving, building upon itself, unraveling and elaborating, so as to remain a viable source for perpetuating and stimulating the imagination.
It seems to me that the initial goal of Modernist artists was not to wholly eradicate the traditions and fundamentals of the Old Masters, but to disassemble the previously accepted approaches to art and clarify them. This was done through the process of self-criticism, which sought to examine the medium through the medium, to address why the Old Masters practiced what they did, and to investigate as to wether these practices were necessary to artistic involvement. The 'purification' or self-definition of specific mediums was required in order to fulfill the Kantian self-criticism; from the Modernist painters perspective this meant stripping away any concept acquired through other mediums, such as sculpture and theatre, and focusing on what made painting a unique form of expression, the flatness of a canvas, the exploration of light vs. color, etc. A good example of this is Piet Mondrian's (iconic?) work, which focuses primarily on black lines and colored rectangles, imitating the frame of the piece, drawing attention to and incorporating it into the work, and thus creating a commentary on the flat landscape of the canvas itself. Regarding the issue of color and its use, American artist Helen Frankenthaler devised a technique of pouring and soaking canvas in pigment, marrying color and structure, and invariably creating a discussion about the range and limitations of paint itself. Manet and the Impressionists also explored color, but delved deeper into the effects of light and optical interpretation. He/They created illusions based on texture and light play, allowing the viewers eye to mix the colors, and drawing heavy attention to the medium itself, all the while making a bold statement that what was created was not a picture, but a painting. Despite the experimental nature of these artists' works, they are not altogether abandoning the conventions of traditional techniques, quite the contrary. They were analyzing established norms, and furthering the study of what painting can do as a medium. Greenberg clearly states that continuity is vital to the preservation of art, that modern art needs the past on many levels, least of all if only to stand as a reference point. Without the lessons of past art, new art would have no context, and therefore change would be irrelevant.
Bonus question:
Reason and progress go hand in hand with the self-criticizing nature of the Modernist movement. Modernism is defined by the characteristics of reason and logic, shifting the collective mindset to that of self-consciousness and self-discovery. Modernist artists followed suit, employing self-criticism as a method for further exploring their respective mediums through testing and experimentation. Progress was discovered through pushing limits and breaking down traditional customs, keeping art as a whole fresh and free from stagnation.
Samuel Dunning
It seems to me that the initial goal of Modernist artists was not to wholly eradicate the traditions and fundamentals of the Old Masters, but to disassemble the previously accepted approaches to art and clarify them. This was done through the process of self-criticism, which sought to examine the medium through the medium, to address why the Old Masters practiced what they did, and to investigate as to wether these practices were necessary to artistic involvement. The 'purification' or self-definition of specific mediums was required in order to fulfill the Kantian self-criticism; from the Modernist painters perspective this meant stripping away any concept acquired through other mediums, such as sculpture and theatre, and focusing on what made painting a unique form of expression, the flatness of a canvas, the exploration of light vs. color, etc. A good example of this is Piet Mondrian's (iconic?) work, which focuses primarily on black lines and colored rectangles, imitating the frame of the piece, drawing attention to and incorporating it into the work, and thus creating a commentary on the flat landscape of the canvas itself. Regarding the issue of color and its use, American artist Helen Frankenthaler devised a technique of pouring and soaking canvas in pigment, marrying color and structure, and invariably creating a discussion about the range and limitations of paint itself. Manet and the Impressionists also explored color, but delved deeper into the effects of light and optical interpretation. He/They created illusions based on texture and light play, allowing the viewers eye to mix the colors, and drawing heavy attention to the medium itself, all the while making a bold statement that what was created was not a picture, but a painting. Despite the experimental nature of these artists' works, they are not altogether abandoning the conventions of traditional techniques, quite the contrary. They were analyzing established norms, and furthering the study of what painting can do as a medium. Greenberg clearly states that continuity is vital to the preservation of art, that modern art needs the past on many levels, least of all if only to stand as a reference point. Without the lessons of past art, new art would have no context, and therefore change would be irrelevant.
Bonus question:
Reason and progress go hand in hand with the self-criticizing nature of the Modernist movement. Modernism is defined by the characteristics of reason and logic, shifting the collective mindset to that of self-consciousness and self-discovery. Modernist artists followed suit, employing self-criticism as a method for further exploring their respective mediums through testing and experimentation. Progress was discovered through pushing limits and breaking down traditional customs, keeping art as a whole fresh and free from stagnation.
Samuel Dunning
1st writing assighnment
Lariesa Durham
Modernist painting question 2
Greenberg relates to modern and traditional painting in king of the same ways. He believes that both shares a lot of common traits. Greenberg identifies modernism with intensification of self critical tendencies that began with the philosopher Kant. Philosopher Kant was the first to criticize the means itself of criticism. Greenberg refers to him as the first real modernist, biased Kant’s aspects, and views. Since Kant used criticism to extract, obtain logic, and establish the limits of logic, he withdrew much from its old jurisdiction. Greenberg believes that everything, including modernist painting began with criticism. The questioning of ones art, criticism of the enlightenment, and self definition. The enterprise of self criticism in art became one of self definition. Naturalistic art dissembled the medium, using art to conceal art. Modern art use’s art to call attention to art, to make one really look at, placing judgment upon it. The limitations that constricts medium of the pigment were attended by the old masters as negative factors that could be acknowledge openly. Example : Manet’s became the first Modernist pictures by virtue of the frankness with which they declared the flat surfaces on which they were painted. Since flatness was the only condition painting shared with no other art, Flatness was another condition that was shared. Modernist paintings oriented itself to flatness as it did to nothing else. Flatness was another favorite of the Old Masters, they thought it was necessary to preserve what is called the integrity of the picture plane. So that it would signify the enduring presence of flatness underneath and above the most vivid illusion of the three dimensional space, art. This was essential to the success of their art, as well as all of pictorial art. Modernists have not avoided or resolved that contradiction, instead they have reversed its terms. For example: One is made of the flatness of its pictures before instead of after , being aware of what the flatness contains. Another, one sees the modernist picture as the picture first, then seeing the picture itself. Kind of like looking at a picture an painting it as is, and looking at the modernist one first, and seeing it as the picture. Greenberg thinks that that is the best way to even look at any kind of picture, old master or modernism imposes it as the only and necessary way. Greenberg believes that modernism owes sculpturing a great deal of debt, because it taught modernism in the beginning how to shade and model for the illusion of relief. One of the artist in sculpturing is a guy named David, he in the 18th century tried to revive sculptural painting. David’s work lies as much in their color as in anything else. In conclusion, Greenberg thinks that what ties modernism, and traditional painting together, is the questioning of ones art, criticism of the enlightenment, and self definition. Also, flatness underneath and above the most vivid illusion of the three dimensional space, art. Last, the bond both has with sculpturing.
Modernist painting question 2
Greenberg relates to modern and traditional painting in king of the same ways. He believes that both shares a lot of common traits. Greenberg identifies modernism with intensification of self critical tendencies that began with the philosopher Kant. Philosopher Kant was the first to criticize the means itself of criticism. Greenberg refers to him as the first real modernist, biased Kant’s aspects, and views. Since Kant used criticism to extract, obtain logic, and establish the limits of logic, he withdrew much from its old jurisdiction. Greenberg believes that everything, including modernist painting began with criticism. The questioning of ones art, criticism of the enlightenment, and self definition. The enterprise of self criticism in art became one of self definition. Naturalistic art dissembled the medium, using art to conceal art. Modern art use’s art to call attention to art, to make one really look at, placing judgment upon it. The limitations that constricts medium of the pigment were attended by the old masters as negative factors that could be acknowledge openly. Example : Manet’s became the first Modernist pictures by virtue of the frankness with which they declared the flat surfaces on which they were painted. Since flatness was the only condition painting shared with no other art, Flatness was another condition that was shared. Modernist paintings oriented itself to flatness as it did to nothing else. Flatness was another favorite of the Old Masters, they thought it was necessary to preserve what is called the integrity of the picture plane. So that it would signify the enduring presence of flatness underneath and above the most vivid illusion of the three dimensional space, art. This was essential to the success of their art, as well as all of pictorial art. Modernists have not avoided or resolved that contradiction, instead they have reversed its terms. For example: One is made of the flatness of its pictures before instead of after , being aware of what the flatness contains. Another, one sees the modernist picture as the picture first, then seeing the picture itself. Kind of like looking at a picture an painting it as is, and looking at the modernist one first, and seeing it as the picture. Greenberg thinks that that is the best way to even look at any kind of picture, old master or modernism imposes it as the only and necessary way. Greenberg believes that modernism owes sculpturing a great deal of debt, because it taught modernism in the beginning how to shade and model for the illusion of relief. One of the artist in sculpturing is a guy named David, he in the 18th century tried to revive sculptural painting. David’s work lies as much in their color as in anything else. In conclusion, Greenberg thinks that what ties modernism, and traditional painting together, is the questioning of ones art, criticism of the enlightenment, and self definition. Also, flatness underneath and above the most vivid illusion of the three dimensional space, art. Last, the bond both has with sculpturing.
Essay #1 From Winn Becton
Greenberg argues that modernism in painting does not represent a radical rupture with representational painting but rather is a continuation of the evolution of pictorial art. This evolution is a byproduct of critical thinking. He endeavors to prove this by tracing the evolution of flatness through western painting beginning with the Renaissance.
Greenberg further states that Modernism in art is the practice of critical thinking in relation to the practice of painting or producing art. It is the stressing of the ineluctable flatness of the surface that remained, however, more fundamental than anything else to the processes by which pictoral art critized and defined itself under Modernism. For flatness alone was unique and exclusive to pictoral art. The Old Masters had sensed that it was necessary to preserve what is called the integrity of the picture plane; that is, to signify the enduring presence of flatness underneath and above the most vivid illusion of three-dimensional space. One tends to see what is in the Old Master before one sees the picture itself.
Below I have three artists discussed trying to show that they evolved from Traditional painting to Modernism. They are Manet, Cezanne, and Kandinsky.
Edouard Manet January 23, 1832, Paris France to April 30, 1883. He was a French painter and printmaker who in his own work accomplished the transition from Realism to Impressionism. Manet broke new ground in choosing subjects from his own time and in stressing the definition of painting as the arrangement of paint areas on a canvas over and above its function as representation. From 1850 to 1856 Manet studied under academic painter Thomas Couture, a painter of large historical paintings. In his spare time he copied the Old Masters in the Louvre. In 1850 to 1856 he opened his own studio. His style in the period was characterized by loose brush strokes, simplification of details and the suppression of transitional tones. (wikipedia)
Paul Cezanne January 19, 1839 - October 22, 1906. He was a french artist and Post-Impressionist painter whose work laid the foundation of the transition from the 19th century conception of artistic endeavor to a new and radically different world of art in the 20th century. Impressionism and the early 20th century's new line of artistic enquiry and Cubism. He was interested in the simplication of naturally occuring forms to their geometric essentials, he wanted to "treat nature by the cyclinder, the sphere, the cone" ( a tree trunk may be concieved as a cyclinder, an apple, or a orange a sphere, for example). (wikipedia)
Wassily Kandinsky December 4, 1866 - December 13, 1944. He was a Russian writer and art theorist. He is credited with painting the first Modern Abstract works.He started painting studies ( life-drawings and anatomy ) at the age of 30 after becoming successsful as a Lawyer and Teacher. His creation of purely abstract work followed a long period of development and maturation of intense theoretical thought based on his personal artistic experiences. He called his devotions of inner beauty, fervor of spirit, and deep spiritual desire "Inner Necessity". He felt this a central aspect of his art. As stated " concerning the spiritual in art" Kadinsky felt that an authentic artist creates art from an internal necessity. He inhabits the tip of an upward moving triangle.This progressing triangle is penetrating and proceeding into tomorrow. Accordingly, what was odd or inconcievable yesterday is commonplace today. Kandisky had become aware of recent developments in the Sciences, as well as advances of modern artists who had contributed to radically new ways of seeing and experiencing the world.
I agree with the arguement that Modern art is a Continuation of the past. My own experience as an artist is one of evolving. I look on all this evolution as a natural progression. I believe that it is a good and helpful experience to learn the basics of art ( drawing, perspective, color, shading, design etc... ) in order to develop as an artist. Critical thinking is essential to art. There has never been a time when the past has not shaped the present and the future. Every person and endeavor will always evolve from the past and present. It is impossible nor desireable to escape the influence of the Traditional art of the past. Modernism emerged because of critical thinking and a desire to use art as commentary. Greenberg said it well: Nothing could be further from the authentic art of our time than the idea of a rupture of continuity. Art is - among other things - continuity, and unthinkable with out it.
I think there is a link between the advances in the science ( especially Physics ) and art. This was touched on in this article of Greenberg's. This is an idea that is being thought about right now. I think it is an exciting area of study.
Greenberg argues that modernism in painting does not represent a radical rupture with representational painting but rather is a continuation of the evolution of pictorial art. This evolution is a byproduct of critical thinking. He endeavors to prove this by tracing the evolution of flatness through western painting beginning with the Renaissance.
Greenberg further states that Modernism in art is the practice of critical thinking in relation to the practice of painting or producing art. It is the stressing of the ineluctable flatness of the surface that remained, however, more fundamental than anything else to the processes by which pictoral art critized and defined itself under Modernism. For flatness alone was unique and exclusive to pictoral art. The Old Masters had sensed that it was necessary to preserve what is called the integrity of the picture plane; that is, to signify the enduring presence of flatness underneath and above the most vivid illusion of three-dimensional space. One tends to see what is in the Old Master before one sees the picture itself.
Below I have three artists discussed trying to show that they evolved from Traditional painting to Modernism. They are Manet, Cezanne, and Kandinsky.
Edouard Manet January 23, 1832, Paris France to April 30, 1883. He was a French painter and printmaker who in his own work accomplished the transition from Realism to Impressionism. Manet broke new ground in choosing subjects from his own time and in stressing the definition of painting as the arrangement of paint areas on a canvas over and above its function as representation. From 1850 to 1856 Manet studied under academic painter Thomas Couture, a painter of large historical paintings. In his spare time he copied the Old Masters in the Louvre. In 1850 to 1856 he opened his own studio. His style in the period was characterized by loose brush strokes, simplification of details and the suppression of transitional tones. (wikipedia)
Paul Cezanne January 19, 1839 - October 22, 1906. He was a french artist and Post-Impressionist painter whose work laid the foundation of the transition from the 19th century conception of artistic endeavor to a new and radically different world of art in the 20th century. Impressionism and the early 20th century's new line of artistic enquiry and Cubism. He was interested in the simplication of naturally occuring forms to their geometric essentials, he wanted to "treat nature by the cyclinder, the sphere, the cone" ( a tree trunk may be concieved as a cyclinder, an apple, or a orange a sphere, for example). (wikipedia)
Wassily Kandinsky December 4, 1866 - December 13, 1944. He was a Russian writer and art theorist. He is credited with painting the first Modern Abstract works.He started painting studies ( life-drawings and anatomy ) at the age of 30 after becoming successsful as a Lawyer and Teacher. His creation of purely abstract work followed a long period of development and maturation of intense theoretical thought based on his personal artistic experiences. He called his devotions of inner beauty, fervor of spirit, and deep spiritual desire "Inner Necessity". He felt this a central aspect of his art. As stated " concerning the spiritual in art" Kadinsky felt that an authentic artist creates art from an internal necessity. He inhabits the tip of an upward moving triangle.This progressing triangle is penetrating and proceeding into tomorrow. Accordingly, what was odd or inconcievable yesterday is commonplace today. Kandisky had become aware of recent developments in the Sciences, as well as advances of modern artists who had contributed to radically new ways of seeing and experiencing the world.
I agree with the arguement that Modern art is a Continuation of the past. My own experience as an artist is one of evolving. I look on all this evolution as a natural progression. I believe that it is a good and helpful experience to learn the basics of art ( drawing, perspective, color, shading, design etc... ) in order to develop as an artist. Critical thinking is essential to art. There has never been a time when the past has not shaped the present and the future. Every person and endeavor will always evolve from the past and present. It is impossible nor desireable to escape the influence of the Traditional art of the past. Modernism emerged because of critical thinking and a desire to use art as commentary. Greenberg said it well: Nothing could be further from the authentic art of our time than the idea of a rupture of continuity. Art is - among other things - continuity, and unthinkable with out it.
I think there is a link between the advances in the science ( especially Physics ) and art. This was touched on in this article of Greenberg's. This is an idea that is being thought about right now. I think it is an exciting area of study.
Modernism in Art: "The New Art"
Clement Greenberg, in his well-known essay “Modernist Painting,” argues that modernist painting flows from traditional painting, and does not represent a break from the past but rather a natural progression from it. Greenberg defines modernism as art that turns on itself to self-criticize, and in doing such, establishes that art (paining, in this case) even more firmly in its unique competencies. I agree with Greenberg’s statement that modernism is an extension of the traditional. In this essay I will demonstrate the fluidity of the movement from traditional to modern using examples from the work of the great modernists Paul Cezanne, Edouard Manet, Wassily Kandinsky, and Piet Mondrian, in addition to Greenberg’s ideas regarding the uniqueness of painting and the movement to self-criticism that occurs in modernist painting.
Modernist painting, as described by Greenberg, is defined by a self-criticism that is not present in traditional painting. Where the Old Masters used tools and techniques to “minimize” certain aspects of painting (the two-dimensionality of the surface, the confines of the canvas, etc.), modernists embraced these features and sought not to hide them but to highlight them, using the unique characteristics of the discipline of painting to criticize that discipline from within. For example, Edouard Manet embraced the flatness of the canvas he worked on. Rather than attempt to show depth and “trick” the viewer into a feeling of space within the painting, Manet’s work avoids depth and instead allows the eye to “see” immediately that the work in question is flat, as indeed all paintings are. By avoiding extensive use of shadow around his figures, such as in Manet’s Plum Brandy, Manet creates an image that is clearly a two-dimensional representation, embracing the flatness of the painting surface rather than attempting to disguise it.
Other modernist painters engage in self-criticism in different ways. Paul Cezanne is known for making the confines of the canvas explicit by forgoing “correctness” in order to fit his image into the space of the canvas. Rather than attempt to conceal the limitations of the canvas, Cezanne often morphed the shape and layout of his subjects in order to make them conform to the limited space and shape of a painting. This can be seen clearly in his work Still Life with Plaster Cupid, where table and background shapes are clearly distorted in order to allow them to “fit” on the canvas.
Wassily Kandinsky and Piet Mondrian both extended the work of the first modernists into the truly abstract. In order to fully embrace the two-dimensionality and confined space unique to the art of painting, these artists embraced abstract forms and thus rid painting of all that it might share with the art of sculpture. As seen in Kandinsky’s Composition VIII and Mondrian’s Composition A, the geometric shapes, use of color and absence of shading all eliminate any doubt in the viewer’s eye that the composition might have three dimensions, or that it may continue beyond the limitations of the canvas. These artists truly embraced the fact that a painting is merely a picture, and, Greenberg argues, may be seen as some of the “purest” of paintings, as they fully embrace that which is unique only to the art of painting.
While some may see these facts about modernist painting as indicators that the modernist movement is separated from the past and does not flow from it, I am in agreement with Greenberg that modernism is in fact an extension of traditional painting. Greenberg states that the flatness of a painting has always been a significant fact; modernism simply made it the primary fact. Indeed, without the paintings of the Old Masters to look back upon, modernists would have had no basis for the rejection of three-dimensionality and embrace of spatial limitation. The self-criticism of modernist painting grew directly from the traditional history of painting and cannot be separated from it. All painting converges in anti-sculpture; modernism may be seen as a reaction to or unraveling of the basic tenets of traditionalism, but it is thus necessarily an extension of traditional painting rather than an entirely new art.
Modernist painting, as described by Greenberg, is defined by a self-criticism that is not present in traditional painting. Where the Old Masters used tools and techniques to “minimize” certain aspects of painting (the two-dimensionality of the surface, the confines of the canvas, etc.), modernists embraced these features and sought not to hide them but to highlight them, using the unique characteristics of the discipline of painting to criticize that discipline from within. For example, Edouard Manet embraced the flatness of the canvas he worked on. Rather than attempt to show depth and “trick” the viewer into a feeling of space within the painting, Manet’s work avoids depth and instead allows the eye to “see” immediately that the work in question is flat, as indeed all paintings are. By avoiding extensive use of shadow around his figures, such as in Manet’s Plum Brandy, Manet creates an image that is clearly a two-dimensional representation, embracing the flatness of the painting surface rather than attempting to disguise it.
Other modernist painters engage in self-criticism in different ways. Paul Cezanne is known for making the confines of the canvas explicit by forgoing “correctness” in order to fit his image into the space of the canvas. Rather than attempt to conceal the limitations of the canvas, Cezanne often morphed the shape and layout of his subjects in order to make them conform to the limited space and shape of a painting. This can be seen clearly in his work Still Life with Plaster Cupid, where table and background shapes are clearly distorted in order to allow them to “fit” on the canvas.
Wassily Kandinsky and Piet Mondrian both extended the work of the first modernists into the truly abstract. In order to fully embrace the two-dimensionality and confined space unique to the art of painting, these artists embraced abstract forms and thus rid painting of all that it might share with the art of sculpture. As seen in Kandinsky’s Composition VIII and Mondrian’s Composition A, the geometric shapes, use of color and absence of shading all eliminate any doubt in the viewer’s eye that the composition might have three dimensions, or that it may continue beyond the limitations of the canvas. These artists truly embraced the fact that a painting is merely a picture, and, Greenberg argues, may be seen as some of the “purest” of paintings, as they fully embrace that which is unique only to the art of painting.
While some may see these facts about modernist painting as indicators that the modernist movement is separated from the past and does not flow from it, I am in agreement with Greenberg that modernism is in fact an extension of traditional painting. Greenberg states that the flatness of a painting has always been a significant fact; modernism simply made it the primary fact. Indeed, without the paintings of the Old Masters to look back upon, modernists would have had no basis for the rejection of three-dimensionality and embrace of spatial limitation. The self-criticism of modernist painting grew directly from the traditional history of painting and cannot be separated from it. All painting converges in anti-sculpture; modernism may be seen as a reaction to or unraveling of the basic tenets of traditionalism, but it is thus necessarily an extension of traditional painting rather than an entirely new art.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Number One:
Greenberg says that Weatern civilzation is not the first to question it's own foundation. and
western civilzation has gone the furthest in self critical tendency.
Cezanne-sacrificied verismilitude or correctness in order to fit his drawing and design more
explicitly into a rectangular shape of the canvas but flatness alone was unique and exculsive to
pictural art.
Manet-became the first modernist pictures by virtue of the flat surfaces on which they were
painted.
Francesca- understands that selfcritism in modernist art has never been carried on in any but
spontaneous way.
Bonus Question: self criticism and self references is the same it is alive in our culture, western
civilzation is not the first to question it's on foudation
Gwendolyn Moore
Art's 2316
Painting I
Instructor:Hagit Barkai
Date:Wednesday:September 9, 2009
Greenberg says that Weatern civilzation is not the first to question it's own foundation. and
western civilzation has gone the furthest in self critical tendency.
Cezanne-sacrificied verismilitude or correctness in order to fit his drawing and design more
explicitly into a rectangular shape of the canvas but flatness alone was unique and exculsive to
pictural art.
Manet-became the first modernist pictures by virtue of the flat surfaces on which they were
painted.
Francesca- understands that selfcritism in modernist art has never been carried on in any but
spontaneous way.
Bonus Question: self criticism and self references is the same it is alive in our culture, western
civilzation is not the first to question it's on foudation
Gwendolyn Moore
Art's 2316
Painting I
Instructor:Hagit Barkai
Date:Wednesday:September 9, 2009
modern painting is continuous w/ traditional painting?
Art is a process or a product of arranged elements designed to appeal to the senses or emotions. In the essay called Modernist Painting by Clement Greenburg he uses the term modernist painting to describe what he called mainstream painting, which openly acknowledges its physical nature as a flat surface. He also uses the term traditional art which is a skill and knowledge that are passed down through generations from mater craftsman, craftsmen to apprentices. I agree when Greenburg claims that modern painting is continuous with traditional painting. He agues that “the limitations that constitute the medium of painting, the flat surface, the shape of the support, the properties of the pigment, were treated by the old masters as negative factors that could be acknowledged only by implicitly or indirectly. Under Modernism these same limitations came to be regarded as positive factors and were acknowledge openly.” He explains with Manet, Kandinsky, and David. “Manet’s became the first Modernist pictures by virtue of the frankness with which they declared the flat surfaces on which they were painted.”
By the middle of the 19th century, all ambitious tendencies in painting had converged amid their differences, in an anti-sculptural direction. In traditional art, all recognizable entities exist in three-dimensional space. The fragmentary silhouette of a human figure or of a tea cup will do so and by doing so alienate pictorial space from the literal two-dimensional. Sculpture taught it in the beginning how to shade and model for the illusion of relief and even how to dispose that illusion in a complementary illusion of deep space. Greenburg he argues that modern art one is made aware of the flatness of their picture before, instead of after, they are made aware that the picture is flat. Whereas one tends to see what is in an Old Master before one sees the picture itself. I can agree with that because when looking at modern painting you first see the picture and then look deeper into it trying to piece the shapes and object together to make out what the artist wants you to see. On the other hand traditional art deals with more religious means. If one looks at a traditional art piece with can see everything depth, shading, light source, the figure, you don’t have to piece anything together because everything you need to know is in a three-dimensional space that can be recognized. What Greenburg is saying is that flatness is the only condition painting shared with no other art, Modernist painting oriented itself to flatness as it did to nothing else.
In conclusion, I agree with Greenburg when he claims modern painting is constant with traditional painting. Because even though both styles of painting are seen differently, traditional art is more detail and right on whereas modern take what traditional does and eliminates all the detail and shading so the only then seen is the light and dark or shape of an object. Edocuard Manet in Greenburg words became the first Modernist painter because he painted what the traditional painters were doing but distorted it in a way where the figure wasn’t in perfect detail. The way her dress was painted and her human figure, it was more like shapes put together. Wassily Kandinsky took it further is actually painted shapes and lines to create he painting. Jacques-Louis David was a traditional painter who tried to revive sculptural painting, it was, in part, to save pictorial art from the decorative flattening-out that the emphasis on color seemed to induce. The old Master created an illusion of space in depth that one could imagine oneself walking into, but the analogous illusion created by the modernist painter can only be seen into; can be traveled through, literally or figuratively, only with the eye.
BONUS QUESTION: modern painting demonstrate a belief in reason and progress an example Manet he understands the human figure and how to constructs a painting but he almost simplifies the figure. This can demonstrate progress because we are learning how to simply a figure to a shape. Another example Kandinsky he demonstrate emotions though lines and shapes. He expressed violent motion through profusion of sharp, jagged, and entangled lines. This could be seen and progress because instead of expressing yourself through your religion, you expressed you feelings in your own method.
By the middle of the 19th century, all ambitious tendencies in painting had converged amid their differences, in an anti-sculptural direction. In traditional art, all recognizable entities exist in three-dimensional space. The fragmentary silhouette of a human figure or of a tea cup will do so and by doing so alienate pictorial space from the literal two-dimensional. Sculpture taught it in the beginning how to shade and model for the illusion of relief and even how to dispose that illusion in a complementary illusion of deep space. Greenburg he argues that modern art one is made aware of the flatness of their picture before, instead of after, they are made aware that the picture is flat. Whereas one tends to see what is in an Old Master before one sees the picture itself. I can agree with that because when looking at modern painting you first see the picture and then look deeper into it trying to piece the shapes and object together to make out what the artist wants you to see. On the other hand traditional art deals with more religious means. If one looks at a traditional art piece with can see everything depth, shading, light source, the figure, you don’t have to piece anything together because everything you need to know is in a three-dimensional space that can be recognized. What Greenburg is saying is that flatness is the only condition painting shared with no other art, Modernist painting oriented itself to flatness as it did to nothing else.
In conclusion, I agree with Greenburg when he claims modern painting is constant with traditional painting. Because even though both styles of painting are seen differently, traditional art is more detail and right on whereas modern take what traditional does and eliminates all the detail and shading so the only then seen is the light and dark or shape of an object. Edocuard Manet in Greenburg words became the first Modernist painter because he painted what the traditional painters were doing but distorted it in a way where the figure wasn’t in perfect detail. The way her dress was painted and her human figure, it was more like shapes put together. Wassily Kandinsky took it further is actually painted shapes and lines to create he painting. Jacques-Louis David was a traditional painter who tried to revive sculptural painting, it was, in part, to save pictorial art from the decorative flattening-out that the emphasis on color seemed to induce. The old Master created an illusion of space in depth that one could imagine oneself walking into, but the analogous illusion created by the modernist painter can only be seen into; can be traveled through, literally or figuratively, only with the eye.
BONUS QUESTION: modern painting demonstrate a belief in reason and progress an example Manet he understands the human figure and how to constructs a painting but he almost simplifies the figure. This can demonstrate progress because we are learning how to simply a figure to a shape. Another example Kandinsky he demonstrate emotions though lines and shapes. He expressed violent motion through profusion of sharp, jagged, and entangled lines. This could be seen and progress because instead of expressing yourself through your religion, you expressed you feelings in your own method.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Written Assignment #1
Greenberg and Self Criticism & Selz’s Gestural Abstraction
Clement Greenberg wrote an article on modern painting and self criticism. In it, he explains how many artists style of art has changed from more tradition to fit a certain medium, thus creating self-criticism among the works. Peter Selz’s introduction to gestural abstraction talks about how the dominant art mode during and after WWII had been labeled abstract expressionism in which artists from America and Europe, in search for their own identities, were displaying works that dealt with geometric shapes, cubes, and circles. The following paragraphs will explain why modern painting created self criticism among the artists according to Greenberg as well as three artists from both Greenberg’s article and Selz’s introduction that fit in that perception.
Modern paintings produce self-criticism according to Greenberg by claiming that the task of self-criticism eliminated the specific effects of each works of art and every effect that might be taken from or by the medium of other art that would be rendered pure and enlightenment. Modernism criticizes from the inside in the more philosophical sense, whereas enlightenment criticizes from the outside in the more accepted sense.
Edouard Manet, in Greenberg’s claims, became the first modernist artist whose virtues of the frankness by which his works were declared on flat surfaces on which they were painted. He abjured underpainting and glazes and left fact that the colors from the paint came from tubes and pots. His paintings often looked unfinished due to his loose brushstrokes and his inability to cover the whole canvas. He would often place colors side by side which allowed the eye to visually mix them rather than mixing them on a palette. Paul Cezanne sacrificed correctness to fit his works on canvas, the flatness alone was new to pictorial art. His planes of color and small brushstrokes built complex field of abstraction. He pretty much laid the bridge between Impressionism and Cubism. Helen Frankenthaler originated a stain-painting that caused light-colored pigments to flow directly on the primed canvas, integrating color and support in a single unit. Greenberg called her style post-painterly abstraction.
Selz found that David Smith was heavily influenced by European art and created a series of works that became increasingly abstract and universal in form and content. Smith’s work had a sense of freedom that balanced between intellectual and sensual. Jackson Pollock’s near mural sized work involved simply pouring paint on canvases he laid in the floor. His artistic decisions evolved from rhythm and action. Alberto Burri used old tattered paper sacks, wooden sheets, plastics, tin plates, and cellotex to create abstractions of war victims wounded bodies, as well as an unavoidable reference to the real world at the time.
In conclusion, I feel that self criticism in its own right produced some the most historical works of art. They all tell a story about the era it which they were produced. The artists involved were the rebels that went against tradition and found their own niches and styles. They were the pioneers that went beyond just paints and brushes, but involved everyday items such as metals and wood that they felt was crucial to getting their artistic visions across to their audience (or the critics).
Clement Greenberg wrote an article on modern painting and self criticism. In it, he explains how many artists style of art has changed from more tradition to fit a certain medium, thus creating self-criticism among the works. Peter Selz’s introduction to gestural abstraction talks about how the dominant art mode during and after WWII had been labeled abstract expressionism in which artists from America and Europe, in search for their own identities, were displaying works that dealt with geometric shapes, cubes, and circles. The following paragraphs will explain why modern painting created self criticism among the artists according to Greenberg as well as three artists from both Greenberg’s article and Selz’s introduction that fit in that perception.
Modern paintings produce self-criticism according to Greenberg by claiming that the task of self-criticism eliminated the specific effects of each works of art and every effect that might be taken from or by the medium of other art that would be rendered pure and enlightenment. Modernism criticizes from the inside in the more philosophical sense, whereas enlightenment criticizes from the outside in the more accepted sense.
Edouard Manet, in Greenberg’s claims, became the first modernist artist whose virtues of the frankness by which his works were declared on flat surfaces on which they were painted. He abjured underpainting and glazes and left fact that the colors from the paint came from tubes and pots. His paintings often looked unfinished due to his loose brushstrokes and his inability to cover the whole canvas. He would often place colors side by side which allowed the eye to visually mix them rather than mixing them on a palette. Paul Cezanne sacrificed correctness to fit his works on canvas, the flatness alone was new to pictorial art. His planes of color and small brushstrokes built complex field of abstraction. He pretty much laid the bridge between Impressionism and Cubism. Helen Frankenthaler originated a stain-painting that caused light-colored pigments to flow directly on the primed canvas, integrating color and support in a single unit. Greenberg called her style post-painterly abstraction.
Selz found that David Smith was heavily influenced by European art and created a series of works that became increasingly abstract and universal in form and content. Smith’s work had a sense of freedom that balanced between intellectual and sensual. Jackson Pollock’s near mural sized work involved simply pouring paint on canvases he laid in the floor. His artistic decisions evolved from rhythm and action. Alberto Burri used old tattered paper sacks, wooden sheets, plastics, tin plates, and cellotex to create abstractions of war victims wounded bodies, as well as an unavoidable reference to the real world at the time.
In conclusion, I feel that self criticism in its own right produced some the most historical works of art. They all tell a story about the era it which they were produced. The artists involved were the rebels that went against tradition and found their own niches and styles. They were the pioneers that went beyond just paints and brushes, but involved everyday items such as metals and wood that they felt was crucial to getting their artistic visions across to their audience (or the critics).
Monday, September 7, 2009
Help in writing
Hi all, hope your holiday is working for you
Also, if you want to discuss the articles with each other when you read or write, you can post questions and ideas and comment to each other’s posts.
Here it is:
Your essay should be built generally with three parts: introduction, body, and conclusion. Here are some ways to help thinking on each part:
Introduction:
1. State clearly what you are going to do in this essay. For example, what is the claim that you are going to make in this essay? What are you going to show/prove/demonstrate?
2. Make sure that all the concepts that you are using when you state your claim are explained. For example, if your claim is that modernism in art is not continuous with the tradition of painting, explain what you mean by ‘modernism in art’, what you refer to as the ‘tradition of painting’, and what it means for this tradition to be continuous. Sometimes it is very easy and obvious, but other times it is surprisingly complicated, so do not skip this stage.
3. State clearly how you are going to support your claim.
First, what kind of support are you going to make for it (examples: prove it? show it? demonstrate it? argue for it?). Second, what are you going to use in order to support your claim (examples: images of Monet’s paintings, Greenberg’s argument that… ).
This is an important part of the essay but it should not be long. One concise paragraph is enough. Look at your introduction again when you are done and make changes in it if you see that you ended up doing something different than what you expected.
Body:
This is the major part of your essay. Here you present the argument to support your claim. Basically you explain why you think your claim is true, valid or important, using the texts and the images.
Arrange your arguments in different paragraphs to separate between different issues that you bring up. Be very clear about the connections between all your paragraphs. For each paragraph, ask: – what is its relationship to the one before it. Examples: does it follow, is it an example? Is it an opposition? Is it further support? Words that will help you direct yourself are things like ‘but’, ‘therefore’, ‘and’, ‘furthermore’, ‘nevertheless’. You don’t have to actually place them at the beginning of every paragraph, but you want to make sure you state clearly the connection between the paragraphs in your essay.
Conclusion:
Very shortly state what you have concluded in the previous part of your essay, and then add one step forward for future discussion. For example, what seems most important to you, looking back at what you wrote? what do you think the next question or interest should be?, what are the questions that could be raised from the discussion you presented? what are the implications that you see of the conclusion you reached?
Good Luck
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)