I understand that the Eiffel Tower was revolutionary for Paris, but how did it inspire all these art pieces? Many other pieces were built throughout time, and never have I heard of so much response from artists. What was truly different about the Eiffel Tower that could inspire so many?
What does the author mean by avant-garde? What difference does he refer to when he says that our recent culture has lost something we had in the 1890s?
On page 20, it’s mention how the paintings by Picasso and Braque “were moving rapidly towards abstraction” creating a tension between the “reality” and “the meditation of visual language”
“Picasso and Braque wanted to represent the fact that our knowledge of an object is made up of all possible views of it : top, sides, front, back. They wanted to compress this inspection, which takes time, into one moment – one synthesized view.”
How can any painting give you more information than reality? It is doomed to be a two-dimensional representation, no matter how alive the “illusion” is.
Tamar Lichter
The author discusses the incredible impact that the bird’s eye view from the Eiffel Tower had on citizens as well as artists, and likens it to the first photograph of Earth from space. Why do you think it is that after being able to perceive microscopic images, the art world has not been so inspired as it was during the beginnings of Moderinism? Are there any other variations in perspective we can hope for? Do such limits explain why we have shifted To a postmodern era of looking back and commenting on the past? Does this also suggest that science and engineering have the same responsibility to be accessible to the public, as in art, for both fields to thrive?
On page 15, a list of fairly recent advances in technology is shown. I am genuinely curious as to how the world would be without these inventions or if the time and energy put into creating tools of destruction or self defense was put into energy conversion and conservation. How different would society be if these inventions weren’t created? Would we be a more religious oriented society or would we be further behind in history’s timeline?
In “Twelfth Night”, does Shakespeare prey on the fact that men played women role?. Is the play intended to be more funny when the traditional males-only rule is observed?
What aspects of Shakespeare’s life played a role in his writing? Was there a personal part of him that he put into his characters (i.e. Antonio loving Sebastian)?
About the play specifically, what attributes worked well for each actor, giving their characters a personality that one cannot just interpret from reading the book?
In the beginning of the play, Olivia was mourning intensely and only Cesario could bring her out of her shell, yet when an entirely different person appears, she is fine with it. How can Olivia so easily fall in love with “Cesario’s” twin, Sebastian who she doesn’t know anymore than the rest of her suitors?
Throughout the whole play, Twelfth Night, what’s the most crucial element to make this comedy such amusing?
