Although there is no image shown for this question, Pietro Perigino is an artist that is known for his peculiar depiction of space behind his painting. His works were famous before the arrival of Michelangelo's painting of the Sistine Chapel.
The paintings actually had presented great Linear perspective that redefined the idea of space in the paintings. He played around with a simple technique that adapts well with the foreground, middle ground and background.
The 2018 publication of a book "<u>The Mediatization of the Artist</u>" written by various writers included a chapter titled "In Bed with Marina Abramovi: Mediatizing Women's Art as Personal Drama" written by Marcel Bleuler.
The recent methods used to mediate popular performance artist Marina Abramovic and the stories built up around her work of arts are covered in this chapter of Bleuler's book. The author argues that Abramovic uses the narrative as part of her image strategy and analyzes paradigmatic projections of a romantic need onto female artists, primarily in film.
Marina Abramovic's famous live performance art during 2010 attracted nearly a million visitors to the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA). While Abramovic attempted to rationalize this hysteria by demonstrating the psycho-neurological significance of her "art" through scientific means, Marcel Bleuler contended that the hysteria stemmed from a rhetoric about the performance that was too profound and that spread over time and through various media, following a common pattern in the mediatization of female artists: the ambiguous attention as a remedy for an unmet need to be appreciated.
<em>Image: "Marina Abramović during her "The Artist Is Present" show at the Museum of Modern Art</em>
Learn more about Marina Abramovic: brainly.com/question/10593223
#SPJ4
Hopefully this works as an example x
There is no denying the fact that the government has to take care of several pressing issues such as poverty, unemployment and illiteracy. This is particularly true in the case of developing countries. However, this does not mean that the government should not spend money on arts.
Art represents a country and its heritage. Take, for instance, the case of India. The country is famous for its exquisitely sculpted monuments, temples and palaces. They were the handiwork of artists of the bygone era. Even today, the temples and monuments at Konark, Rajasthan and Madurai attract tens of thousands of local and international tourists. They showcase the rich cultural history of the country and elevate its status. If the kings of those times had not patronised art and artists we would not have these monuments to show off now. Not only the monuments but other forms of art like dance and music also need to be preserved for future generations. Otherwise, we will lose touch with our roots.
Government funding is crucial for the existence of arts. Art itself does not generate much revenue and hence artists, especially the lesser-known ones, have to struggle to make a living. This deters many of them from pursuing art as a profession. The only way to kindle their passion is to provide them financial assistance. By doing so, the government can not only protect its artists from starvation but also preserve his cultural legacy. Spending money on arts is also a way of generating money and creating employment. For example, if the government conducts art festivals and exhibitions, they will attract a lot of visitors and return the investment. Such events also provide employment to a number of people. Thus, it is evident that spending on arts is not a waste of resources.
To conclude, it is important for the government to invest in various social and economic welfare schemes. Likewise, it is equally important to invest in arts.
Chopin best arranged for piano music ever, and his burial service walk was played at the memorial service of John F Kennedy. He was a Polish author and virtuoso piano player of French-Polish parentage. He is viewed as one of the colossal bosses of Romantic music.
