which of the Modern Art movement do you prefer the most and explain why? (ex. Impressionism, abstract etc.)?

Question

I need this for my English assignment

Answer 1

Neo-dadaism [1] is an outgrowth of abstract expressionism [2], but like most art movements that grow out of one into another, it is also somewhat of a reaction against abstract expressionism.

My favorite artists are Adolph Gottlieb [3], especially his Burst series, and Robert Rauschenberg [4], for example his Factotum I and II. What they preserve of the abstract expressionists (and what makes me prefer them) is the boldness, strength and simplicity of their designs -- a balance of spontaneity and structure.

My favorite abstract expressionists were Jackson Pollock with his energetic splashes of paint all over the canvas and Mark Rothko with his solid elegant blocks of color. Their expressionism combines emotional intensity and self-expression; their work is abstract because of their absolute anti-figurative designs. They came to prominence in the 1950s, when I was beginning to notice and be intrigued by modern art. I think I responded positively to them because of the sense of liberation from old traditions they represented, because their large, bold, colorful canvases demanded attention, and because the emphasis was on the painting itself, not something outside the painting that it imitated or reproduced.

But then Gottlieb came along, balancing spontaneity and structure, and combining the energy of a Pollock with the strength of a Rothko. Furthermore, he no longer held himself aloof from symbols of his culture. "In his last series Burst which started in 1957, he simplifies his representation down to two shapes, discs and winding masses. His paintings are variations with these elements arranged in different ways. This series . . . suggests a basic landscape with a sun and a ground. On another level, the shapes are so rudimentary; they are not limited to this one interpretation. Gottlieb was a masterful colorist as well and in the Burst series his use of color is particularly crucial." My two favorites among his works are the original Burst and the later Brink.

Neo Dada, for example in the work of Jasper Johns and Jim Dine, goes even further in using traditional symbols, such as a flag or a heart, but again with the spontaneity and structure, the energy and strength of abstract expressionists, though now without their insistence that the design be antifigurative.

However, Robert Rauschenberg went much further, incorporating elements of collage and assemblage in his paintings, still treasuring spontaneity and structure, energy and bold design. "In 1952 Rauschenberg began his series of 'Black Paintings' and 'Red Paintings,' in which large, expressionistically brushed areas of color were combined with collage and found objects attached to the canvas. These so-called 'Combine Paintings' ultimately came to include such theretofore un-painterly objects as a stuffed goat and the artist's own bedquilt, breaking down traditional boundaries between painting and sculpture . . . ." Rauschenberg questioned the difference between art objects and everyday objects and said that he liked to work "in the gap between art and life." My favorite work of his has large expressionistic splashes of color and bold design, but also incorporates a comicstrip, a print of the "Birth of Venus," newspaper clippings, photos of a track meet, a political poster, and pencil drawings.

In quite different ways, Gottlieb and Rauschenberg were both as liberated and expressionistic as, say, Pollick or Rothko or Robert Motherwell, but they also preserved a sense of the human community and they celebrated enduring archetypal symbols and soulful communication.

Answer 2

You're right, I don't see much point in abstract art either. But ya know what? My car doesn't need a cupwarmer either. Luxury is the possession of things you don't need, or anything above 'bare minimum', so in a way, Abstract art is luxury. P.S. the one painting that REALLY irks me is that painting of the Campbells soup can by Andy Warhol. I just HATE that painting. It's completely pointless, and isn't even 'Abstract', or whatever he markets it to be. I hate it when someone tries to explain the 'meaning' behind that damm can of soup. IT'S JUST SOUP!!! P.P.S. Those three artists are actually pretty different... Gogh is a post impressionistic painter, Dali is a surrealist, and Picasso is... well... Picasso. I'm assuming that you like some of their more popular works. Mmmkay. Well, Gogh has a whole collection of his "Starry Night" series. I've always been quite fond of those. However, in the interest of sticking to "Abstract art", I wouldn't recommend pursuing his other work. Dali, well what can I say. I don't much care for him. Let's leave it at that. Picasso is Picasso, there aren't many that follow his 'style' (Look for Paul Klee's work if you're interested in cubism). An artist that you could check out is MC Escher. His work isn't that abstract, but it has a certain sense of mysticism. René Magritte is also one that you might want to take a look at. Voilà.

Answer 3

"Life is not an eternal search for God: Life is an Eternal Expression of God."
What do you think of this statement? Moreover, the level of evolution that we have achieved so far only shows us how far we can truly reach. Existence is God experiencing God’s self through us and all of life. We are individual, unique, divine, aspects of the whole seeing itself through our different perspectives. This is the essence of life, to experience all things in all ways and to expand to undreamed of levels of awareness and creativity. So my main question is this. Should we not unleash ourselves from our own self-contained ideology and rhetoric and understand the unlimited nature of the universe which is God? This is Life! This is ever evolving evolution! We are how the Universe creates itself, that is how important we are!

Answer 4

Surrealism, It's my favorite one because its use a lot of creativity and genius only are capable to see trough that style.