Our last major discussion is dedicated to diversity in 20th-21st Century Art. During this session, we have explored the Renaissance, Baroque, Romantic, Neoclassical, and 20th-21st Century Art styles. The Renaissance originated in a relatively small region of Western Europe—Italy—and was accessible to aristocracy and the ultra-wealthy. The Baroque style was mainly inspired and sponsored by the Catholic Church, which gave the world masterpieces by Caravaggio and Rembrandt. The era dominated by the Romantic and Neoclassical aesthetics was in part inspired by sentiments of the Industrial Revolution, as well as by rejection of such, respectively; so the thematic subjects in this era were more down-to-earth in comparison to the ones that preceded them.
However, up until the end of the 19th Century, art was commissioned and dominated by the so-called “elite.” This situation dramatically changed at the turn of the 20th Century, in which the explosion of different styles, as well as the appearance of artists from various backgrounds and demographics, was celebrated. For instance, Pop Art (also discussed in Case 4 assignment) instantly appealed to and became accessible to the large masses beyond the circle of the traditional art connoisseur.
In this Discussion, I would like to hear your view on the subject of diversity and self-expression in contemporary art. Choose one artwork that symbolizes, in your opinion, the diversity of 20th-21st Century art.
Provide an argument supporting your choice by discussing one or more of the following: style, origins, thematic elements, or the background of its creator.
Discuss how the work appeals to different populations and/or represents different layers of society.
You may want to start by considering works by Banksy, Frida Kahlo, or members of the Harlem Renaissance movement, among many others.
It must be stated that research has been carried out into the links between language and thought, a relationship so complex in nature that conclusions and ideas about this pair are difficult to form. This relationship is being explored but the quest into finding definite or fixed answers that go beyond the reach of science continues today. It must be recognised that philosophical and anthropological reasoning are necessary tools when considering this relationship and that science in this case cannot act as a sole means of approaching this question.
Science provides humans with the answers to many of today’s greatest questions. However when there is a lack of evidence, hypotheses are often formulated, some being impossible to ever disprove hence remain accepted. Creativity, thought and a feeling of curiosity come into play when any hypothesis is created. Language therefore can be left to the imagination when considering its origins as no physical evidence exists that can take us back to its beginning. I may be presenting an opinion which seems to disregard the role of science but I am simply stating science can generalise many situations but in this context, it is an individualised phenomenon in which it is up to the individual to present their thoughts based on external factors that science cannot simply explain or condense. When language is considered, one needs to consider the individual, society and context in which the language has integrated itself.