arthist 123 final paper

There may be bad conceptual artists, but conceptual art (as our own century has succeeded in teaching us) in not inherently bad because of its distance from the natural appearance of things. Archaic Greek art should not be considered the work of artists unable to do better any more than Giotto should be blamed for not painting like Titian. Artistic conditions and expectations change, but art does not necessarily improve. [...] And there have been modern scholars who, if they would not laugh at a born-again Daidalos, explain Archaic art as a vigorous but experimental and technically inferior prelude to Classical art, as if each Archaic sculpture or vase painting were a progress report on the road to Perfection, as if the Archaic artist tried to be Classical and failed -- which is no explanation at all. The Archaic style is neither defective nor preparatory (at least it is preparatory only in the sense that every style prepares for its successor). It is not an incompetent way of imitation the truth but a rational and consistent way of analyzing the truth, even of making up the truth. Archaic art is not a mirror. It is a prism. - Jeffrey Hurwit, The Art and Culture of Early Greece

but this is the best argument i have heard for the validity of modern art as well. it clears up a lot of the things that i have always wondered about...for example, why do people never question the integrity of art leading up to the renaissnace; honestly, some of that stuff is freaky looking. i mean byzantine art? have you ever seen the freaky man-baby Jesuses?

have some faith in the historicity of your generation.