261–264 of 264 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So where should one look? It seems tome that society is very much what does provide freedom, just not all freedoms.
One should look to oneself, and act according to what you believe to be right. Internalising an externally provided morality is not it.
Not the first time when the Default Country thinks they invented everything. The title is almost comical. Modern art, as everyone should know, started in 1860s in Europe inspired by technological advances, globalization of trade and cultural exchange. Japanese art made huge blast, photography pushed to seek new forms of expression, social progress demanded new messages and new images. We had impressionism, post-impre…
Sure. But those making the claim are not talking about that. They're talking about the post 50s abstract expressionism and pop art movements. Just because it says "modern art" doesn't mean it refers to any and all modern art, much less 19th century art or say cubism or dada.
Which is exactly the problem. If you're going to make an argument that depends on analyzing one very specific thing detached from its surrounding context, you have to actually address that context, and justify why you're ignoring it.
The claim that 1950s pop art was deliberately engineered by a CIA conspiracy for geopolitical purposes can't be sustained without explicitly arguing for why it isn't a natural evolution from the existing trends in art and design that were already prevalent at the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The word has not only one but several clear meanings: > In the context of art history, modernity (Fr. modernité) has a more limited sense, modern art covering the period of c. 1860–1970. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernity
The more relevant term is Modernism, which was a wave of anti-realist abstraction in the arts and sciences. It's more than a century old now. "Modern art" in the 1950s/60s post-war sense means extreme abstraction with no realism at all. Ironically abstraction can work in two directions - evocative messes like Pollock, or clean geometry and abstract functionalism in design and architecture. The CIA liked the former in…
And probably also due to it being a counterpoint to the constructivist styles that were being actively promoted by Soviet authorities at the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meanwhile historians are out there, regarding things from 500 years ago as modern.
This doesn't change the meaning of the word modern, though. It just uses a different scale. The same way the Moon is "right next to" the Earth. However, when you tie the word "new" or in this case "modern" to a time period that was over a hundred years ago you are just setting yourself up for failure and have to make do with calling things "after new" or in this case "post modern". But then where will this end? What…
Eras only get these proper names long after they're over. To people living during those eras, they were just "now".