Question

We have seen the shift from a naturalistic representation of the human form (with an emphasis on idealization in Greek art and realism in Roman) to a more conceptual, formulaic representation. Why do you think this happened? What is the advantage to conveying a message through images that no longer focus on a representation of the natural world? Use two examples in your response

Answer 1

Note: This response is in UK English, please paste the response to MS Word and you should be able to spot discrepancies easily. You may elaborate the answer based on personal views or your classwork if necessary.

(Answer) Art is a form of expression that is conveyed through different media. This expression is a way of communicating moods, emotions, fantasies, dreams, thoughts etc. There are no rules or barriers as to what can or cannot be conveyed. That is why it is called “art” and not “science.” Science has a set of established rules, logic or theories that lead to the right answer. The question, “what charge does an electron carry?” can be asked. The answer will be “negative charge,” even if one is in a bad mood, feeling idealistic, realistic, and surreal or in a fantasy.

Conversely, if the Greeks wanted to express the human form in an idealised way, they simply could. This is when art is for art’s sake. The Romans chose to explore a realistic view and modern artists chose their own perspective. Picasso’s paintings have eyes, the nose and the lips in different directions, Van Gogh had an impressionistic style and Dali has a surrealist style. Each of these artists chose to represent the human form through colour, shapes and a slight distortion of reality. This may not be the natural world but it is probably how the artist feels about the natural world.