Basic Arguments About Modern Art example essay topic

ART A critique Going to see the play "ART' in the UCLA Doolittle Theater was quite an enjoyment. The house was small so that almost any seat had a good view. The ushers were very professional and the whole thing was very organized. The best part was when the lights when down, a rumble of people everywhere shifting to seats closer to the stage could be heard!

The set was very wonderfully done in a very witty way. There were three tall walls with large simplified cornices and foot guards. The floor was covered with dark brown tiles with a square carpet in the center. On top of that were three chairs and a simple coffee table. The way this set was used was so great because it alone represented each of the three characters homes and the painting hanging on the wall is what differentiated them.

Among the three chairs were three styles, an elegant renaissance type chair, a Barcelona chair from the Bauhaus, and a very non-state mental armchair. Each chair style belonged to the character with the matching personality. The whole stage was monochromatic in this light creme color making the colorful personalities easier to focus on. The first character, Mark, has a painting on his wall that is referred to as a Flanders landscape painting and belongs to the renaissance chair.

He is very demanding and controlling when it comes to his opinion of art. He is the mentor to Sergio. To imagine his character, picture Joe Piasentin and all of his dramatic ism and directness. Throughout the play you just kind of want to ring his neck, much like Joe.

The play begins with his opinion of Sergio's new purchase of a white on white painting. His goal is to make it known to Sergio that he wasted his money, by the end of the play we find out that it is because he feels replaced by Sergio because he has found his own outlet that does not agree with Mark's. The Barcelona chair and the 70's white on white painting represent the character Sergio. He is a man of high circles and likes to keep on top of the evolution of man, particularly in art. He is presenting all of the basic arguments about modern art, bringing them to surface and addressing them.

I believe this was a great aspect of the play because it educated the viewers who were probably in the position of Mark. He uses art terms such as deconstructionism and conceptual art that many of my friends asked me to explain after the play. (Luckily we had just learned it in class!) Even though I do not believe that he purchased this piece of art for the right reason (the name of the artist), this does bring up some of the right reasons one should appreciate modern art and not believe classical art is the only art with validity. The third character, Ivan, is a wishy washy character much like his choice in art. He philosophy about Sergio's buy is that if it makes him happy, then the painting is worth it. This is where the other majority of people sit. (on the fence) His piece of art on his wall is considered by the classical loving Mark and by modern loving Sergio to be a hotel painting and ' a piece of censored '.

It is a bowl of pears, but what makes it so special to Ivan is that his father had painted it. He was the character that belonged to the white armchair, it was simply a comfy char that makes him happy. Through it all is the underlying tension of friendships and the jealousy that they endure until they finally break. The need to feel important and appreciated by someone.

Ivan for example always viewed Sergio and Mark as equals, friend that he could turn to, they may have thought him a little slow but always included him. Mark always had viewed them on a ranking system in which he was the one at the top. (Condescendence is a big issue in the play.) He was dependent on Sergio's need to learn the arts, which flattered him. Sergio doesn't state how he feels in so many words, but it seems that he has only himself on his mind and goes where he needs to in order to achieve his happiness Finally in the end, at the breaking moment in the friendship and in the art argument, they pull together. Unfortunately the way that the ice is broken is done in trickery which alludes to a whole new story yet to be told.

This was a great play that makes the audience feel like we are being given all sorts of hints, such as the chairs, and we are allowed to figure them out for ourselves. This gives the play a small element of interaction. Over all it was a great play, and if you haven't seen it, I tried not to give away the end.