Art Appreciation and Related Theories – Art Theory Paper Follow paper 1.docx file, write a paper, min 750 words. And follow paper 4.docx and paper 4.pdf wr
Art Appreciation and Related Theories – Art Theory Paper Follow paper 1.docx file, write a paper, min 750 words. And follow paper 4.docx and paper 4.pdf write another paper., also min 750 words. Do the theories that we have studied so far help us in any way to appreciate the following works.
Niki de Saint Phalle
Vija Celmins
Shooting Painting 1961
Shooting Painting 1960
Ocean with Cross 31 1971
(Moderna Museet Tableau Tir 1961)
(MOMA 860.2011)
(MOMA 675.2005)
The point of the exercise is to give insight into Duchamp, Motherwell, Bell, and Greenberg. The artworks
are there in order to give you some examples to use in your discussion. They are not the focus for the paper. You
can write the paper by just reading the selections from the text. You do not need to do outside work. On the other
hand, I bet that if you discuss Shiragas painting, you look up Shiraga on line. That is fine, but give all citations.
Even if you just look up Shiraga on wikipedia, give the citation. Pay attention to the note below on academic
honesty. The index to our text will also direct you to two items in the text. The statement on New Realism
presumably relates to the work by Saint Phalle. The Gutai Manifesto directly speaks to the work by Shiraga.
Try to focus on comparisons and contrasts in each paragraph. For instance, discuss and Motherwell and
Greenberg AT THE SAME TIME. The most common mistake that students make is to write a paragraph about
Motherwell, then a paragraph about Greenberg, then a concluding paragraph that compares. It is much better to start
compare throughout. Have each paragraph present a comparison or a contrast. And draw from those comparisons
and contrasts a combined interpretation of the two writers.
To make sure we are all looking at the same pictures, I indicate in parentheses, the title of a Google search
that will take you to a decent image of the work in question. I do not expect you to discuss all six works. But do
discuss at least two works by different artists.
Some notes about style:
In a short paper, you do NOT have room to quote more than a phrase of a few words. You might write for
instance that Bell says that we bring with us nothing from life in art appreciation. This sort of quotation of five
or six words is fine. But you cannot quote long sentences and whole passages in a two/three page paper. All the
same, you need to provide textual evidence for your claims. When you make a claim about some view that
Motherwell expresses, do refer to the relevant paragraph. For instance, you might write that Motherwell says that
abstract art is used to objectively capture the artists individual ego (p. 645).
Please use outside sources as you wish. In that case, give references. You do not have to use outside
sources. Think of the paper as an exercise, not as a term paper.
In a short paper, you do NOT have time for an general introduction of the sort Plotinus was an important
philosopher of the 3rd century. Skip all that and go directly into the topic. A good title can replace the
introductory remarks.
A note about academic honesty.
The papers assigned for this course do not require scholarly research beyond the assigned texts and the
sources for the image. You may do research, if you find it helpful. And then you must give references to all the
sources that you use. You must acknowledge all help that you receive, all passages that you quote, and all sources
for your ideas. The one exception is that you do not have to acknowledge any help that you receive from Prof.
Snapper. But if you directly quote him, use quote marks appropriately.
In the informal course papers, you do not need long, formal, academic references. If you use a web-site, it
is enough to just give a URL. If you use a book, it is enough to give author and title. But do always acknowledge
references, if you use them. If you do a web search to see an image of a work, site the source of the image, etc.
You may get a reasonable level of help from friends. But then acknowledge that help. You might say
something like I would like to thank my friend John Doe for helping me edit this paper.
If you do use sources or get help without acknowledging it, you risk a punitive grade for a violation of IITs
code of academic honesty. And violations will be reported to undergraduate affairs. Just to be safe, be overly
cautious and always acknowledge assistance.
Text: Art in Theory 1900-2000, ed C. Harrison & P. Wood
Celmin’s Ocean Wave is a drawing, not a print. It is done
with graphite. And then the cross is done with an eraser. I
have no idea what she was working from when she made
the drawing. She might have been looking at a
photograph of waves. Or perhaps, as you say, actually
looking at the ocean. In any event, you are right that it is
important to appreciate the drawing as a drawing of
waves. It is a ‘representation’ of a bit of the ocean.
Now we have to consider whether any of the theories that
we have considered help us understand her work. Clearly
the more extreme formalists (e.g. Bell and Mondrian) think
that representation is unimportant. So they do not help us
much. But maybe we can get more help from Duchamp,
or Motherwell, who are interested in more than formal
composition.
Again, I think you are right that Saint Phalle’s Shooting
Picture indicates her state of mind. Again, we now have to
ask to what degree the theories tell us to consider the
artist’s state of mind when looking at the picture. Here we
can, I think make real use of Motherwell’s art theory.
Your remark about art that is ‘easy to manufacture’
echoes Benjamin’s ideal of art for the masses. On his
view, today’s art must use manufacturing processes that
are open to the world. Clearly Reinhardt does not do
that. The Levine is an edition of wood-block prints. Ideally
wood-block printing is indeed easy to manufacture, but
Levine does not do it that way. She produced a very
limited edition by a complex process. It is almost as if she
goes exactly against Benjamin’s ideals. She uses woodblock in a way that is incompatible with the easy-tomanufacture form of wood-block printing.
Be careful with the word ‘modern.’ Many of these critics
distinguish between ‘modernist art’ and ‘postmodernist
art.’ So the work ‘modern’ becomes problematic. I
sometimes use the phrase ‘today’s art’ to avoid that
problem.
I have no idea what Heppner is thinking about. Just make
up your own interpretation. There are very short
statements in the text by Reinhardt and Levine that can
explain their views.
Text: Art in Theory 1900-2000, ed C. Harrison & P. Wood
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
