I will post topics for the discussion board. You will be asked to respond with your thoughts and ideas. Images may be posted to illicit further ideas and discussion.

I will post topics for the discussion board. You will be asked to respond with your thoughts and ideas. Images may be posted to illicit further ideas and discussion.

This is an ice breaker topic to get your thoughts flowing on what you may know on the state of political art today.

Find an artwork that is controversial or of nature political that may be considered protest art. You can go back in time up to 100 years in finding a work of art. Research the art that is controversial and submits/post the image in the discussion box as well as your ideas surrounding the work. Discuss why or why it is not conversational. What is controversial about the artwork? Is there historic precedence that has changed how the artwork was seen in the past and is seen now? Why has the context of the idea of the work evolved over time?

I wrote “Post-impressionism is not a style or a movement. Post-Impressionists were a few independent artists of the late 19th century who rebelled against the limits of Impressionism. They created a group of human models that focused on emotions, shapes, images, and spiritual objects that they thought did not originate from Impressionism. Their essays are based on the roots of modern technology for eighty years.

Impressionism is the first part of todays art canon. As with many changes, it gradually developed into a medium and became interested in its shortcomings for the following times. Many artists inspired the traditions of Impressionism, pushed style boundaries in creative ways, and laid the foundation for the 20th century. For the simplicity of history,
these artists are called post-impressionists, but unlike the impressionist influence, they have little in common.”
my professor asked me why this painting was political. I need help explaining why