Read this New York Times article and respond to the following prompt using the comment feature.
The author states that artistic taste has always been "hostage to its era" and that eventually even the modern methods we use to conserve and restore art will seem just as "time bound and clueless" to future generations of conservators. Do you agree or disagree and why?
Responses should be one paragraph long. Support your reasoning with examples using the article or other sources. Feel free to react to someone else's post but be respectful. This extra credit assignment will be open until school begins, have fun!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
AP Art History Extra Credit:
ReplyDeleteI personally agree somewhat to this article. I believe that art should be conserved to allow future generations to view it. However, I do not believe people should alter paintings when they conserve it to reflect the time period that it was altered. If all anybody did was change artworks to look appropriate for the time, no one would understand the true history behind art. There is no one way to look at art. Art is a reflection of oneself and should be enjoyed that way. If the only way to conserve a painting is to change it, then I suppose it must be done. Otherwise, future generations won't know anything at all about past art styles (even if some of the paintings have been modified). The painting Woman at a Window was modified to conserve it and also to go along with the time period it was modified. If there is a way to conserve this painting without changing it, then that should be done. If that is not possible, then modifying it should be okay. Even forgeries shouldn't be looked at with disdain because they are still art and if people didn't know they were forgeries, they wouldn't care. If there was somehow a way to show forgeries as pieces of art but have people look at them with almost the same attitude as real pieces of art, then I believe that should be done. The forgery of Virgin and Child With an Angel was probably not looked at with shame if the viewers didn't know it was a forgery. I believe that everybody should look at art more broadly and not just with the idea that all art must somehow reflect the times we are living in. What galleries should do is put up artworks (even if they are forgeries) and see what the public thinks of them. If the public likes them, then they should be kept up. They should only be revealed as forgeries if the viewers would still be okay with looking at them after knowing that. In addition, if artworks are modified, the viewers deserve to know why they were modified and a little about the time period they were modified. In conclusion, art should be looked at and enjoyed above all else.
Jeffrey Xu
I had some trouble understanding the article.
Extra Credit Discussion:
ReplyDeleteIn a sense I do agree with the author’s statement that artistic taste has always been "hostage to its era" and that eventually the modern methods we use to restore art will seem just as "time bound and clueless" to future generations of conservators, just as it has occurred in the past and, will most likely occur in the future. While our scientific and chemical methods now to restore art may be seen as unbiased and advanced currently, no doubt in the future they will viewed negatively, and thought to ruin original artworks. The same can be seen in the past, with how the restorations of a seemingly Italian Renaissance painting of a brunette are currently viewed. After conservators began to restore the painting in 1978, it became clear that a smaller-eyed, sultry blonde was the original subject of the piece, and an unknown Victorian art conservator had later come in and restored the painting in a method that was fitting at the time, by painting over and altering the subject of the work. Today however, the restorations have caused the painting to be viewed by the public as an Italian-Renaissance fraud, and rejected by artists everywhere. But regardless of fraud, restoration, original, or forgery, all works of art are just that, art, and should be viewed and enjoyed by all regardless of their past or present-state. So, although I believe that restorations are time bound and will continue to alter the original content of a painting, therefore causing the picture to lose some of the history that it possesses in the colors and techniques used, as Jeffrey mentioned it must be done, so I suppose that artwork must continue to be restored, in order to be enjoyed and appreciated at all.
~Michelle Katz
Now closed. Thanks Michelle and Jeff!
ReplyDelete