- Arjuna.R.Joyosumarto
- Posts : 32
Join date : 2019-08-06
Age : 22
Introduction & Conclusion - Juna (12 F), Ataya (12 L)
Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:12 am
PART A
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1C0tAANVr9vMHjxka1etU9mwJIp1htkU_x7rwkB4afP8/edit#slide=id.p
PART B
Modern Art is Garbage, and here's more proof by John Robson [Introduction & Conclusion revised]
INTRODUCTION
Can the world be more vacuous when it comes to art? I'm not saying that art is stupid or anyone in the world is dumb, but I'm saying from the perspective of the world that it has gone modern and that they lack in creativity. What's the use of art when we have the media, they still exist but with a different purpose. Modern art can still exist, but sooner it can be useless if the industry dies. Now that modern art is still a thing, the more vacuous it gets, the more priceless it will be.
CONCLUSION
I don't say art should be rubbish all the time, and I'm not saying that art should extinct either. But if I were to say what art is, it's about how to visualise something in an vacuous way. The way art was made is not from art itself, but how art was made by the people who invented their artistic models. Nowadays Modern Art tends to play rough in the industry, whether it's about plagiarising other people's artwork or creating rubbish artwork and propose to sell it on a full price with high demands, artists nowadays would lack with creativity and turns the business of creativity with money.
PART C
Introduction & Conclusions by Risty, Dhira, and Alex
Introduction:
Conclusion:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1C0tAANVr9vMHjxka1etU9mwJIp1htkU_x7rwkB4afP8/edit#slide=id.p
PART B
Modern Art is Garbage, and here's more proof by John Robson [Introduction & Conclusion revised]
INTRODUCTION
Can the world be more vacuous when it comes to art? I'm not saying that art is stupid or anyone in the world is dumb, but I'm saying from the perspective of the world that it has gone modern and that they lack in creativity. What's the use of art when we have the media, they still exist but with a different purpose. Modern art can still exist, but sooner it can be useless if the industry dies. Now that modern art is still a thing, the more vacuous it gets, the more priceless it will be.
- Original Body of the text:
- Unlike victims of the just-exposed 15-year-long fraud that raked in $80 million, destroyed New York City’s oldest art gallery and involved “modern masters” paintings knocked off in a garage. I didn’t buy that stuff literally or figuratively. I figure if experts can’t tell the real thing from junk, there’s probably no meaningful difference.
I grant that it’s harder to tell a modern forgery from a modern masterpiece on technical grounds, because chemistry can’t reveal anachronistic paint in a “Rothko” the way it can in a “Leonardo.” But either a painting is nice or it’s not.
Now the glitterati may think the word “nice” proves I’m a hopeless Philistine. Art isn’t meant to be decorative or pleasing. It’s meant to disgust, shock, challenge “convention” and reduce hope and morality to a smouldering heap of obscene rubbish.
Well, then, what could do a better job than a successful fraud? The narrator of Kurt Vonnegut’s Breakfast of Champions wonders whether some modern artist “with his meaningless pictures had entered into a conspiracy with millionaires to make poor people feel stupid.” But modern art even leaves rich people feeling stupid.
How’d you like to be the guy who paid $8.3 million for a fake Rothko, “Untitled (1956)”? Or more precisely, the chairman of the board at Sotheby’s who did so? You’d think he’s the sort of person who’d know real from fake and bad from good.
Which brings me to another question. If the painting was good until you discovered it was by Pei Shen Qian, why’s it suddenly bad now? I grant a certain non-aesthetic value to objects d’art associated with people famous on other grounds. Even genuine, well-attested Hitler watercolours fetch five-figure sums despite their mediocrity. But it doesn’t work when the person is famous for being an artist (or, worse, for being famous).
A Jackson Pollock shouldn’t be worth more because it’s by him. Ditto a “Rothko.” According to Wikipedia that would be Mark Rothko (1903-1970) who “refused to adhere to any art movement” but “is generally identified as an Abstract Expressionist.”
I didn’t know that. I also didn’t know you got to “adhere” to art movements. I thought the way you sang, sculpted or pickled sharks, put you in a certain category, so you’re chucked into the abstract rubbishist bin if you paint abstract rubbish and you don’t get a vote on it.
Evidently that’s a hopelessly bourgeois view. But I know hideous when it affronts my gaze. And the core of this scandal isn’t the fakery. It’s that modern art isn’t randomly ugly and lacking in discernable merit. It’s that it does it on purpose.
All art has a message. “Art for art’s sake” or “all in the eye of the beholder” is an infinite regress or a contemptible evasion, a brazen peddling of fake relativism. Including that trite “Untitled” name.
A painting, poem, novel or a song says something. And “modern” art, not art produced recently but art promoting self-consciously “modern” values, says life is horrible. That’s why it’s ugly. Offensiveness, however trite, is content.
The fake Rothko reported in last Wednesday’s National Post is clearly angry and unpleasant. But if you wouldn’t hang it on your wall if it weren’t “a Rothko”, dahling, you shouldn’t hang it on your wall if it is. It belongs in the bin where, with comic frequency, the charlady puts such stuff. The reason you can’t tell a good modern art from a bad fake is that all garbage stinks.
Modern art is mad, bad and dangerous to know. And apparently to buy as well.
Such diatribes invite a patronising “You don’t understand art.” But at least I know enough to tell when I’ve been slapped in the face with a canvas, or ripped off in the spirit of pop icon Andy Warhol’s “Art is what you can get away with.”
CONCLUSION
I don't say art should be rubbish all the time, and I'm not saying that art should extinct either. But if I were to say what art is, it's about how to visualise something in an vacuous way. The way art was made is not from art itself, but how art was made by the people who invented their artistic models. Nowadays Modern Art tends to play rough in the industry, whether it's about plagiarising other people's artwork or creating rubbish artwork and propose to sell it on a full price with high demands, artists nowadays would lack with creativity and turns the business of creativity with money.
PART C
Introduction & Conclusions by Risty, Dhira, and Alex
Introduction:
- To us, yes it could engage the readers' interest. How that is accomplished is that gives a brief understanding about Modern Art, and then explain what the problem of the topic that seems to affect them as the writer.
- With the information given, it seems that it giving thoughts with as many details of what we can be sure about Modern Art instead of visualising them, so the answer remains unknown but the explanation is what is told about Modern Art.
- It does presents the problem a lot, and they explain with as many information on how Modern Art is a problem through perspectives
- It does, have a statement and it's really strong. There are facts told about the topic in the statement
- Unsure about the Line of reasoning, but in terms of explaining, yes there were many that they did very detailed
- The main key terms at the moment is "Modern Art" itself. Just that and it explains literally everything. From the beginning till certain problems about the topic, that's their Introduction for the thesis.
- This may be appropriate for audience, the fact that is started politely explaining about Modern Art, and then moving on to their claim about the garbage topic. It's polite and audience will feel interested to dig into the topic.
- This should be accurate to the topic, however the opening talked softly while it tried to integrate with the body of the essay differently
Conclusion:
- It was able to restate the topic, several keywords from the body of the article explains everything
- It sums up the argument pretty well, they're able to create a short version of what has been stated above.
- From their perspective, they would say that they've fulfilled everything when they summarise the topic.
- There's no solution or call to answer, but the end part pretty much explains what to expect when dealing with this topic.
- This should be accurate, what they've stated in the conclusion is everything summarised from the argument.
- Mr. StocktonAdmin
- Posts : 1156
Join date : 2019-08-01
Re: Introduction & Conclusion - Juna (12 F), Ataya (12 L)
Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:58 pm
Part A is locked with a password. The other parts appear well done.
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|