free essays on paintings

Search Results Free Essays Unrated Essays Better Essays Stronger Essays Powerful Essays Term Papers Research Papers Search by keyword:   Sort By:   Your search returned over 400 essays for paintings 1  2  3  4  5    Next >> These results are sorted by most relevant first (ranked search). You may also sort these by color rating or essay length. Title Length Color Rating   A Study on the Changes and Attributes of Contemporary Landscape Paintings - Landscape painting has been a center of Oriental style painting and has portrayed the balance of nature as Wang Yu once said, A landscape painting is the best of painting. Landscape painting has developed its dimension by reserving the inheritance of its spirituality and philosophy ever since Chinese landscape painting introduced into Korea. After 1945, contemporary Korean landscape painting was newly born while influenced by real rendering technique, ink philosophy, Western technique, and social changes of surrounding environment.   [tags: landscape paintings, paintings, art,] 579 words(1.7 pages) Unrated Essays [preview] The Renaissance Paintings of Fra Angelico - The Renaissance Paintings of Fra Angelico It seems fitting that for more than a century, the popular image of an angel has been that of an angel by Angelico. As historian Pope-Hennessy tells us - the idiom he evolved has come to be regarded as the natural language of religious painting. (1) The impetus to research Fra Angelico's life comes from a deep respect for religious art. However, having grown up in the Catholic Church, stained glass windows and sculptures of religious figures were more familiar to me than religious paintings.   [tags: Painting Paintings Reinassance Essays] 1325 words(3.8 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Comparing Paintings by Arthur Keller - The historical painting I chose for my final, is an illustration of Bret Harte’s novel, Her.
Enter Your Search Terms to Get Started! What is Art? Art has been a part of our life for as long as humanity has existed. For thousands of years people have been creating, looking at, criticizing, and enjoying art. I would like to address three questions: what is art, what is its purpose, and why has it survived for this long. First, what is art? Humanity has faced this question for many centuries. How can we distinguish between fine art and a beautiful poster? How can we call both Malevich’s “Black Square” and Da Vinci’s “La Joconde” art, yet not include some people’s paintings into this category? I believe that the only things that distinguish these works are the artist and the artist’s objective. The connection between what the artist means to achieve and what he achieves through the medium is what I believe classifies art. If what the artist meant to say is understood by at least one person in this world, when we can safely call that piece art. What classifies a masterpiece, however, is when not only one person understands what the artist was trying to say with the piece but when the majority does. Many people believe that the fine arts are elitist. Nevertheless, art is not something that you have to study to understand and enjoy. Art is something that captures the eye. Whether the artist is trying to communicate an emotion, an idea or something else, the most important thing is how well the audience receives it. However, art can also be shocking, something new. If a creative piece by an artist can spark the discussion of whether that piece is art or not, then it is art. Art is something that inspires people, something that transports us into different realities and moves us into the subconscious places that we did not know existed. What is the purpose of art? Art has some very practical purposes. For example, an art class might take a trip out to a local gallery.
Barry Schwabsky Painting in the Age of the Image We live in the age of the image. But don’t ask me to define the word: its very elusiveness is of the essence. We talk about image when we want to indicate an appearance that seems somehow detachable from its material support. This is most obvious when we speak of a photographic image: it’s the same image whether it’s presented as a small snapshot or blown up as a big cibachrome, glowing on the monitor of my computer or mechanically reproduced in the pages of a magazine. It has often been said that the invention of photography in the mid-nineteenth century changed the nature of painting by withdrawing from it the task of representation that had so long been at its core, thereby enabling the emergence, in the early twentieth century, of a fully abstract art. The initial plausibility of this story, however, should not disguise its falseness. Any mediocre painter of the nineteenth century could depict a person, object or landscape with greater accuracy and vividness than a photograph. (If nothing else, the painter could show the colour of things, hardly a negligible dimension of visual experience.) The real attraction of the photograph – beyond simple economics since a photographic portrait cost a lot less than one in oils – lay not in its capacity for iconic representation but rather in what has been called its indexical quality, that is, the apparent causal connection between an object and its image. The image comes from what it shows, a sort of relic. Far from irrational, there may be an important truth lurking in this notion of the image as a detachable constituent of the reality it pictures. In any case, it finds an echo not only in the transformation of art since the advent of photography but even in philosophy. In the late eighteenth century, Immanuel Kant taught that we can know, not things in themselves, but.