art movements typically have patterns opposing societal change
art movements typically have patterns reflecting societal change
in what sense are these statements in tension?
the synthesis is like
art movements typically have patterns that can be usefully interpreted with reference to local societal change. they both reflect and critique that change.
which seems… eminently reasonable, almost vacuous. the fun part would be drawing these connections: how does a given art movement help us understand its historical context? how does locating a work in history help us understand that work?
It was kind of phrased badly here. I meant, one was art usually opposes change (like romanticist art glorifying nature and individualism), and the other essay was: art usually just goes along with change (like realist art emphasizing that the individual is unimportant)
in what sense are these statements in tension?
the synthesis is like
which seems… eminently reasonable, almost vacuous. the fun part would be drawing these connections: how does a given art movement help us understand its historical context? how does locating a work in history help us understand that work?
It was kind of phrased badly here. I meant, one was art usually opposes change (like romanticist art glorifying nature and individualism), and the other essay was: art usually just goes along with change (like realist art emphasizing that the individual is unimportant)