On page 21, the author states, “The tradition of the human figure…had at last run out.” When artists began the shift from drawing people and nature to simply drawing objects and man made structures, a few artists decided to go to other cultures for inspiration.  There was so much change happening in the European countries, so why did artists feel uninspired? Did they have to exercise their newfound perspective? How did this desire lead them to explore different countries and cultures?

It is interesting to see how France used the World’s Fair as an opportunity to one-up the Asian Crystal Palace with the construction of the Eiffel Tower.  However, the tower also represented something important for the economic classes of the time, which was a clear advancement of the center of wealth from noble, landed wealth to industrial wealth.  What meant more to the people of Paris, or even France? That the Eiffel Tower would trump the Crystal Palace or its symbolism of economic advancement from the Ancien Regime?

The author says that, “what was our culture lost in 1980 that the avant-garde had in 1890? Ebullience, idealism confidence, the belief that that there was plenty of territory to explore, and above all the sense that art, in the most disinterested and noble way, could find the necessary”. What cause the culture in 1980 to lose all of those qualities in art? How does modernism take away all the quality from art?

Realism where a piece of art is an almost exact carbon copy of its subject, and abstraction, where all dimensions of a painting (color, shape, value, size, etc) smushed together in one plane, are point of views an artist can chose for his/her self to express themselves with. But Picasso argues that he never made an abstract piece of art. If true, is there really no “realism” or “abstract” or other forms of art but perspective (point of view)? Like how Cezanne’s work was described as, “Is this how I see things?” not “This is how I see things.”

I’m actually quite curious how one piece (the Eiffel Tower) ended up inspiring so many other works.

Yes, I find the architecture and design of the tower to be quite unique, but I’m simply wondering if there was a specific characteristic that may have set off a large amount of inspiration in the Art community. Was it due to the fact of its prominence (height-wise), perhaps?

Since the Eiffel Tower was public art, everyone could see it from any point in the city and perceive the relation that was starting to appear between art and engineering. Can it be said that the Eiffel Tower became such an important symbol because it was available to everyone?  Also, at what point was new technology or engineering be considered art?

I love the fact that this article connects two different aspects to creation, that of engineering and that that of art (pg 12). How do you think this affects your thoughts about what constitutes art?
What aspects of a structure like the Eiffel Tower inspires different artists?

The author states that prior to the painting of Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Auignon, no other painting had “signalled a faster change in the history of art” (21). How can one art piece signal the change in the history of such a rapidly growing form of expression?

Picasso’s “Les Demoiselles d’Auignon” uses sharp lines and angles to portray the women.  This is a stark contrast from the soft curves that many early twentieth-century artists used to draw and paint women.  Why does Picasso depict women in such a harsh manner?

-How does the mechanics of art mirror the mechanics of life? And can mechanical art evoke the same emotions as other earlier forms? (p. 49)

-How does mechanical art mimic power and how did it contrast simple rural life? (p.36)

Sarah Hussain