Nothing is ever simple: the classical model of art history appears as an orderly progression until it reaches our century; it's a deceptively logical stream of objects created over time, in which one phase inevitably follows another. It seems to possess... [more]

Nothing is ever simple: the classical model of art history appears as an orderly progression until it reaches our century; it's a deceptively logical stream of objects created over time, in which one phase inevitably follows another. It seems to possess a certain cohesiveness that has slowly deteriorated as world communication increased, resulting in the artistic melting pot of today. Now, distinct characteristics and discrete definitions are nonexistent in an elaborate and deliberate web of cross-references. In fact, the story of art before the twentieth century is a complicated chronicle of increasing self-consciousness and individualism. Patronage by rulers and churches slowly gave in to the primacy of the artist, and the repeated risings and fallings of religions and peoples became faster and farther-reaching. The Egyptians depicted what they knew to exist, flattened into two-dimensionality; the Greeks, dedicated to realism, depicted what they saw existing; artists of the Middle Ages relied on what they felt, conveying profound faith rather than a convincing likeness to nature. None looked to past civilizations until the Renaissance, the first movement to become aware of its own existence, the first in a new trend towards self-proclaimed 'isms' and overlapping influences. With individualism came experimentation, and to hell with the critics: Impressionists, dabbing the colors that struck their eyes and ignoring picturesque subjects, rejected history and went out on their own limb. A millennia of cycles between harmony and discord have spun us into the difficult and engaging disarray of modernity; to understand this past is to navigate the present with depth and ease. [show less]