Just say yeah and Jk. Rowling isn't an author because she doesn't write realisticly
Answer:
In some cases, you should use all of these but if you're just doing definitions you should just use one word per card. If you are recording a website you should record just the source information and if you are writing a fun book you should use only one fact or thought per note card.
Please Mark as Brainliest
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
The emergence of female artists in eighteen-century Europe was a consequence of the Enlightenment times in this region when science, political thinking, and arts opened new ways to openly express human ideas never before heard.
The prevailing social and cultural trends that affected these artists and their work favored the support for painters like the above-mentioned, who had the best opportunities to share their work than in previous Middle Ages times. Although at that time the role of women was not so prominent and was always behind the shadow of men, some artists could have the social connections to exhibit their paintings.
I would like to refer to the case of Angela Kauffman, a Swiss painter (1741-1807). She was considered a Neoclassic painter that could successfully exhibit her works in places such as Italy and Great Britain. She specialized in landscape and decorative figures.
Answer:
One of Pablo Picasso's famous paintings is called Guernica.
Explanation:
Answer:
There is an old question that has entertained the minds of many thinkers who look to art and wonder whether it is a mirror offering a reflection of life itself. Art has the power to evoke the same emotions, thoughts, moral and ethical controversies, and conflicts that we experience in life. Anyone who has had a personal reaction towards a work of art will be in agreement. What is it then about the essence of art and the essence of life that are so unmistakably different? Is it a possibility that art gives humans the opportunity to experience phenomena that are not accessible in quotidian life? Is art merely an imitation of life as Plato once asserted with such conviction, or is art a freestanding sphere in which humans can learn in exceptional ways? Through the deliberation of such questions the artist can perhaps move closer towards understanding his tremendous capacity to illustrate our existence in a distinct and remarkable way.
The Greek philosopher Plato declared the artist to be “an imitator of images and is very far removed from the truth” (Republic X, 27). Plato was certain that art was nothing but a dangerous and shallow imitation of life that served only to draw humans far away from the Truth. This unique concept of ‘Truth’ refers to the idea that the purest existence of any given thing lies not in the physical manifestation of the thing itself, but rather in its invisible and eternal ‘Form’. Let us take an example of a table vs. The Table. Any given table is a table that has been modeled after the eternal form of The Table. Somewhere in an otherworldly domain, alongside all the other eternal forms of the universe, exists the One and Only Table in all its truth, purity, and Tablehood. The carpenter may look towards but not at the Form of the Table (or else the carpenter would be God and at which point probably no longer a carpenter) in order to produce, or ‘mimic’ a lesser yet sufficient model of The Eternal Table. In a similar way the artist can be compared to the carpenter, only deserving of less respect according to Plato. The artist does not look to the Form of Beauty, say, but rather looks to the physical image or projection of Beauty. This removes him even further from Truth than any other ordinary laborer. The artist is in this way an imitator, and art is a ‘mimesis’ or imitation of the visual display of Eternal Forms such as Beauty. Consequently it is Plato’s persuasion that art as a mere impression of life is detrimental to the inner soul and its understanding of righteous Truths.
Explanation:
is this the type of essay you're looking for?
