Please hurry!! Radom/wrong answers get reported( not kidding)
Some local art students are planning a trip to Europe for an art history tour. They will tour all the great art museums of France and Italy. Because of your knowledge of the French language, you were asked to write to these students to explain the many great benefits that learning another language can have for people in their career and how knowing the language can help them better understand what they are going to see in Europe.
Write a short essay in English to these students to let them know the advantages of knowing French in a career in art & art history. You can also tell them about what to expect from taking a French class and share experiences that have made you want to study French.
Answers
Well, the Italian Futurists weren't just 'incorporated' as Marinetti, their leader was an explicit supporter of Mussolini and the Fascist Party from 1919 for the duration of the regime. In fact, the Futurists were originally a political party - the Partito Politico Futurista - which was absorbed by the Fascist Party in 1919. Marinetti also co-wrote the Fascist Manifesto. And, of course there are more - many more in fact - who were explicitly linked to the Communist Party either explicitly like Picasso, Aragon, Eluard, etc., and the Russian artists Gudrun mentions above, or tacitly so - and to many political positions in between.
The point is, I think, and in answer to the question, that art can be a positive or negative force for change, whether that change be good or evil, and depending of course on where you stand. Best to think of it more neutrally and dispassionately as one of many 'socio-cultural technologies' like writing, reading, religion, computing, etc., which can work in any number of ways as 'things that are good to think with' as anthropologists would put it. It's best not to sacralise it as intrinsically radical, progressive, challenging, etc., as we tend to do with the European aesthetic approach. It is, as Clifford Geertz and Pierre Bourdieu have argued , a specific 'cultural system' which is comparatively modern and not at all universal. Many ancient indigenous cultures, the Australian Aborigines for one, don't have a word for 'art' but that doesn't mean that they don't do what we might call art - as we know that they do and are selling very nicely at Christies and Sothebys in New York and London and elsewhere. It's just that they don't think of it as separate from the everyday routines and practices of daily life, customs, rituals, kinship relations and so on.
I hope that's useful and provides some sort of answer to your question.
Well, the Italian Futurists weren't just 'incorporated' as Marinetti, their leader was an explicit supporter of Mussolini and the Fascist Party from 1919 for the duration of the regime. In fact, the Futurists were originally a political party - the Partito Politico Futurista - which was absorbed by the Fascist Party in 1919. Marinetti also co-wrote the Fascist Manifesto. And, of course there are more - many more in fact - who were explicitly linked to the Communist Party either explicitly like Picasso, Aragon, Eluard, etc., and the Russian artists Gudrun mentions above, or tacitly so - and to many political positions in between.
The point is, I think, and in answer to the question, that art can be a positive or negative force for change, whether that change be good or evil, and depending of course on where you stand. Best to think of it more neutrally and dispassionately as one of many 'socio-cultural technologies' like writing, reading, religion, computing, etc., which can work in any number of ways as 'things that are good to think with' as anthropologists would put it. It's best not to sacralise it as intrinsically radical, progressive, challenging, etc., as we tend to do with the European aesthetic approach. It is, as Clifford Geertz and Pierre Bourdieu have argued , a specific 'cultural system' which is comparatively modern and not at all universal. Many ancient indigenous cultures, the Australian Aborigines for one, don't have a word for 'art' but that doesn't mean that they don't do what we might call art - as we know that they do and are selling very nicely at Christies and Sothebys in New York and London and elsewhere. It's just that they don't think of it as separate from the everyday routines and practices of daily life, customs, rituals, kinship relations and so on.