"The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism" really surprised me. I was anticipating that it would be a dry academic essay like "Horizons" but it was written in a style that was almost like a creative piece, with descriptive imagery and characters with a sort of plot. It has really beautiful language; a line I particularly liked was "Look! There on the earth, the earliest dawn! Nothing can match the splendor of the sun's red sword, skirmishing for the first time with our thousand-year-old shadows."(The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism" p. 49) It is a very poetic line. The essay as a whole has a very poetic quality about it with its dramatic and exaggerated descriptions of the everyday. I thought the idea that museums were like cemeteries (The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism p. 52) was a really interesting point, that it is useless to waste time on old ideas when you could be using the time to come up with ideas of your own. I find it a valid argument but I don’t think they should be burned down like is suggested in the essay.
“Horizons” was an interesting article and was very informative for me because I was not quite sure what to make of the avant-garde. The first line of the article kind of rang true for me that “The history of most arts is the history of their avant-gardes, of those works and groupings of works which the next generation seizes upon to follow.” I had never really though about it that way but when the idea was presented to me it made a lot of sense. Nothing is really worthy of noting unless it is something different from what everyone else is doing. Even though I found the article really informative I found it dry and boastful and the author kind of rubbed me the wrong way.
whoops, forgot my question:
ReplyDeleteIf academia is so off in reguards to how it studies art literature, how do we fix it? How do we make it so that we don't analyze in terms of putting them into categories to suite the needs of academia? How do you study something with out comparing it to something else?