Art is in everything we see, do, and create. We buy it, sell it, display it in our homes, go visit it in galleries and museums. It’s a talent that has been influencing minds for centuries and the tradition is by no means being hampered in our modern-day world. With so much art out there, it is getting continuously more difficult to define “contemporary art”(Kimball). It is making increasingly less sense to discuss avant-garde art or even the future of art, as if all art were going in the same direction.
Kimball chooses to open his article with two quotes, the first of which being from Han Sedlmayr, an Austrian historian, professor, and a once member of the Nazi party. Although a former Nazi holds no less an opinion of art, it is still generally …show more content…
Berger’s stance on modern art supports certain elements of Kimball’s argument. Kimball believes that avant-garde art is boring and that it has lost the greatly rich skill that was once required. This is an opinion and view that Berger passionately agrees with and supports. However, Berger approaches this with a different mindset. Berger is neutral and seemingly more open-minded. Berger’s main focus is on the art that we see and interact with hundreds of times a day: advertisements. Berger also discusses how traditionally paintings were a way for a person to display their wealth and all they had accomplished. This ties into Kimball’s opinion that those who, he more specifically notes, attend Bard College do so as a testament to their wealth in compensation for their lack the abilities to “get into a Harvard or Yale or Williams”(Kimball). The two authors demonstrate that even centuries apart, art (and art school in Kimballs case) are generally used to identify class, stature, or wealth. However, Kimball and Berger’s differences strongly outweigh their similarities. Berger presents his argument using examples of various paintings from different time periods, while indepthly explaining the meaning behind each. Kimball only makes a crude declaration that only the sons and daughters of the wealthy who were not worthy to attend Ivy League school, attend liberal arts, or more specifically, Bard College. The statement Kimball makes is not backed by any information, again lowering his credibility. Berger specifically examines and makes note of important valuable aspects of twenty-nine different pieces of art. Kimball solely bashes all aspects of that he is discussing while providing little evidence, next to nothing in the way of an explanation, and is completely and utterly
Kimball chooses to open his article with two quotes, the first of which being from Han Sedlmayr, an Austrian historian, professor, and a once member of the Nazi party. Although a former Nazi holds no less an opinion of art, it is still generally …show more content…
Berger’s stance on modern art supports certain elements of Kimball’s argument. Kimball believes that avant-garde art is boring and that it has lost the greatly rich skill that was once required. This is an opinion and view that Berger passionately agrees with and supports. However, Berger approaches this with a different mindset. Berger is neutral and seemingly more open-minded. Berger’s main focus is on the art that we see and interact with hundreds of times a day: advertisements. Berger also discusses how traditionally paintings were a way for a person to display their wealth and all they had accomplished. This ties into Kimball’s opinion that those who, he more specifically notes, attend Bard College do so as a testament to their wealth in compensation for their lack the abilities to “get into a Harvard or Yale or Williams”(Kimball). The two authors demonstrate that even centuries apart, art (and art school in Kimballs case) are generally used to identify class, stature, or wealth. However, Kimball and Berger’s differences strongly outweigh their similarities. Berger presents his argument using examples of various paintings from different time periods, while indepthly explaining the meaning behind each. Kimball only makes a crude declaration that only the sons and daughters of the wealthy who were not worthy to attend Ivy League school, attend liberal arts, or more specifically, Bard College. The statement Kimball makes is not backed by any information, again lowering his credibility. Berger specifically examines and makes note of important valuable aspects of twenty-nine different pieces of art. Kimball solely bashes all aspects of that he is discussing while providing little evidence, next to nothing in the way of an explanation, and is completely and utterly