Basically its saying photography has become a bit too focused on the past - even if it’s the immediate past. Just take all that talk about, let’s say, how colour photography became an accepted part of art photography (you could also pick the New Topographics<span> or whatever else). And then re-read the quotes…
or saying </span> <span>Fitting in is a necessary, but not sufficient criterion.
Being new is not sufficient.
Popularity right now is not enough.
Someone liking the poem now is not enough.
Does a poem conform to the new times?
Is a poem individual and different?
These are coexisting requirements for a poem to be valuable.
>is a work of art that conforms completely really a work of art?
"Conforming", in the sense of forming the leadership for a new age.
Yes, conforming is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement for a poem:
"its fitting in is a test of its value–a test,"
>should contemporary works of art be judged as “better” or “worse” than past ones?
There is no way that new poems be as bad as old poems, or their canons.
"certainly not judged by the canons of dead critics."</span>
1. opinionated
2. Illegible
3. Mediocre
4. Usurp
5. trite
I'm sorry if any of these are wrong
Answer:
The past tense version of "sing" is "sang", so it would change to "They sang a beautiful song".
I hope this answers your question for i wasn't given a source or an excerpt so i looked it up.
"<span>When he is first seen by Faustus, he is horrendously ugly. Faustus immediately sends him away and has him reappear in the form of a Franciscan friar. The mere physical appearance of Mephistophilis suggests the ugliness of hell itself."
Technically this is not a math equation so i hope its ok to quote. </span><span />
Answer:
B.Insecure
Explanation:
Mark brainlest!!!!
Guys stop deleating my answers.
