Throughout this whole essay Paul Greenhalgh, from my opinion, is stressing how art history doesn't do much good for the art of ceramics. He also goes on to say that found ceramic objects gives historians ideas to develop theories about the certain time that the objects were found. They also show the type of society and class of the people by the analysis of the medium of the ceramics used to compose the pieces.
He also went on to say that ceramics apparently is not "avant-garde". Which I'm guessing is the courage to go try something new and different that no one else has seen before, from the military sense definition he has given in the essay. Even though he says in a cultural sense avant-garde movements "did not wish to change art, they wished to change the world". But cubism was a part of the movement and even though it wasn't used to change art, it did and made a huge impact in the art world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment