The first article, "Horror Is a Constant, as Artists Depict War," written by Alissa J. Rubin, talks mostly about the real-world conflict with war and how it is portrayed through different art forms. What I found very interesting was how they differentiated between art and journalism on this very pressing topic. An important question that was posed stated, "Are gore and blood the most important things to portray, or is it the moment of utter grief that follows?" I think that both can be very effective if portrayed in the proper way. There are places where gore can be very effective, but also the heavy feeling following it can make audiences react stronger to than the other, and vice versa.
The second article, "When Modern Art Met Modern Warfare," is taking the lives lost and creating a mass response and feeling from the public to capture the lives lost. They take the deaths and are able to make people connect to them in a way since a good portion of the public has their own personal connection to the war and to those who had died. The artwork in this article to me seemed different than the ones featured in Rubin's article. Rubin's article was more explicit and direct whereas I feel that this article was portrayed through a much more modern perspective.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am an art student and I hope you enjoy this site! Archives
May 2018
Categories |