Answer:
D: Poetry that focused less on structure and more on the musical qualities of language.
Explanation:
Actually, the poetry in Modernism gives importance to structure, and rejects the ideas of realism and traditional forms in arts, and promotes new forms, atonality, stream-consciousness novels, treats social and literary traditions with irony. Modernism considers obsolute the culture of the past. It believes in an unending cycle of destruction, but then, reappearing in a new form.
Answer:
The period of the 3rd, the 2nd, and the 1st millennia bce was a time of drastic change in Europe. This has traditionally been defined as the Metal Ages, which may be further divided into stages, of approximate dates as shown: the Bronze Age (2300–700 bce) and the Iron Age (700–1 bce), which followed a less distinctly defined Copper Age (c. 3200–2300 bce). At this time, societies in Europe began consciously to produce metals. Simultaneous with these technological innovations were changes in settlement organization, ritual life, and the interaction between the different societies in Europe. These developments and their remarkable reflections in the material culture make the period appear as a series of dramatic changes.
Explanation: to be helpful
After asking the question "Do you like it?" during a critique, even if your answer is "no" you should point out details that you do actually like about the piece. This is especially important when giving constructive criticism to someone who is looking to improve their work, mostly for the sake of kindness. When doing this at a gallery, it's not as important though it still helps to validate your opinion if you can acknowledge things that are actually decent about the piece even if you don't actually like it. You should first explain what you like about the piece's technicalities(objective things such as tone, value, anatomy, perspective etc.) and then you should explain what you like about the piece's creativity(subjective things such as aesthetic, subject-matter, brush strokes, & symbolism). Next, you should get into the actual criticism, explaining what you don't like about the piece even if you do like it overall. You should, similarly to when explaining what you like about a piece, first explain what you dislike about the piece's technicalities and then explain what you dislike about the piece's creativity. Especially when judging technical ability(even sometimes creative ability), critique can be particularly difficult when judging a master's work..it can even be difficult when trying to critique someone of similar or slightly higher skill than that of yourself. There are, of course, many different methods to go about critiquing artwork, and there isn't really one right answer.
Five eyes would fit across a persons head..