Assignment

Social, political, or economic conditions can alter the nature and meaning of art.

Be certain to support your position with examples that compare and contrast at least two of the following eras: Baroque, Rococo, Neoclassicism, and Romanticism. Choose specific examples of artistic achievements from the two eras. Examples can be drawn from architecture, painting, printmaking, or sculpture. You may use the links below for assistance with the assignments provided that artists you choose are discussed in the textbook.

Metropolitan Museum of Art. Caravaggio (Michelangelo Merisi) (1571–1610) and his Followers Caravaggio (Michelangelo Merisi) (1571–1610) and his Followers | Thematic Essay | Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Tate Britain. Gothic Nightmares: Fuseli, Blake, and The Romantic Imagination Tate Britain | Past Exhibitions | Gothic Nightmares

Harden, Mark. Artchive: Sculpture Garden Baroque Mark Harden's Artchive: Sculpture Garden - BAROQUE






What political, social, economic or religious conditions define or characterize the two eras that you chose? Are there similarities or differences in the conditions?

-How did these “conditions” impact or influence the artist you chose?

-How do the “conditions” influence the message or meaning of the art work?

-How does the artist convey the “conditions” in the artwork that you chose?

-Compare the eras and the specific art works you chose.




My work
I would think it would depend on the Artist. There are two types of artists. The ones who creates their art based on realistic ideas and the things happening in their surroundings for them Social, Political or economic changes might change their art and even their base of artistic thinking. Artists can be influenced by the things you mentioned, but not the actual art itself. But only the artist really knows the meaning of what he has created. But there are some artist who just creates their arts based on their thoughts and their deep meanings they have of there life which would not change with social, Political or economic changes. Others can interpret the meaning, but that doesn't mean its right. But everyone has a different like or dislike of certain arts, be it on canvas or stone or theater etc.
Beauty is in the "eyes" of the beholder.

Baroque art flourished during the 17th century. Through the influence of the French
Royal court, Versailles replaced Rome as the artistic center of Europe. France maintained
That position until the advent of World War II. Artists and writers were commissioned
By the French kings to create works that reflected the grandeur of the French
State. No longer restricted to religious scenes and portraiture, artists now also painted
Landscapes, still lives, and allegories and were interested in expressing the psychological
State of their subjects. Paintings were theatrical. Artists explored space, light, and
Time in their paintings, stressed naturalism, and expressed emotion. Figures occupied a
Space with depth, and pictures gave a feeling that life continued beyond the edges of the canvas.



The style is in direct contrast to the French classicism practiced by Poussin. The subjects
Of Rococo art are lighthearted and frivolous. Artists painted outdoor entertainments
In which nobles dressed up as shepherds and shepherdesses or other pastoral
Characters (fêtes galantes) and lovers and cherubs. The lines of Rococo art are C- or Sshaped curves, and the palette is dominated by pastel colors. There is nothing harsh or
Serious in Rococo art.

Sounds like art history class...

You are right with the discussion that there are basically two schools of thought in art. The discussion acutally goes back to Aristotle and Plato, which we only know of through "Plato's Republic" Basically Plato would say that art has to have a meaning and has been interpreted as a meaning for the masses, the common man can understand and enjoy it. Much like some of the Communist art, showing Nationalism, pride in the country, posters decorating public squares of the leader or workers etc... very politcal. Aristotle was more of the point of view that art is for pleasure. That it doesn't have to hold some deep politcal meaning.
Artists were often only employed by the people with money - Medici, Royal Courts etc.. often doing family portraits or biblical allegories. A good contrast to Rococo which is more light hearted. Maybe you could expand your answer with some specific titles.

Sounds like art history class.....

You are right with the discussion that there are basically two schools of thought in art. The discussion acutally goes back to Aristotle and Plato, which we only know of through "Plato's Republic" Basically Plato would say that art has to have a meaning and has been interpreted as a meaning for the masses, the common man can understand and enjoy it. Much like some of the Communist art, showing Nationalism, pride in the country, posters decorating public squares of the leader or workers etc... very politcal. Aristotle was more of the point of view that art is for pleasure. That it doesn't have to hold some deep politcal meaning.
Artists were often only employed by the people with money - Medici, Royal Courts etc..often doing family portraits or biblical allegories. A good contrast to Rococo which is more light hearted. Maybe you could expand your answer with some specific titles.


Thank you

You are welcome...
I believe that artists did not gain real freedoms until the invention of photography in the 1830's. Suddenly a photograph could depict realistic images in an instant. This caused a whole new era of exploration with light and color, then Impressionism evolved and all this other "isms" that followed.