20th-21st Century Art

 

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.

 

Sample Solution

21st-century art is a burgeoning field of practice, research, and publication, making it an incredibly dynamic field of study. Many important topics have been resonating in the new century and inspiring new thinking and scholarly debate, such as the surge of bio art in response to scientific research in the life sciences, and the critical theory known as relational aesthetics that developed in response to an increase in art that invites viewers’ participation and interaction. Other topics that were much-discussed in the late 20th century remain vital for the analysis of 21st-century art and visual culture, including semiotics, post-modernism, and feminism.

In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which is a lot more moral than Vittola’s view but implies the same agendas: ‘can’t be punished simply for fighting.’ This means one cannot simply punish another because they have been a combatant. They must be treated as humanely as possible. However, the situation is escalated if killing them can lead to peace and security, within the interests of all parties.
Overall, jus in bello suggests in wars, harm can only be used against combatants, never against the innocent. But in the end, the aim is to establish peace and security within the commonwealth. As Vittola’s conclusion: ‘the pursuit of justice for which he fights and the defence of his homeland’ is what nations should be fighting for in wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332). Thus, although today’s world has developed, we can see not much different from the modernist accounts on warfare and the traditionists, giving another section of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, we can still conclude that there cannot be one definitive theory of the just war theory because of its normativity.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.