Neo-classicism vs. Romanticism
Ictoa
2009/10/23 03:29:50
|
|
|||||
|
28 votes
|
|
72% | ||
|
11 votes
|
|
28% | ||
Ive been researching a lot about the different eras, And yeah....so whats it gonna be?
Things had loosened up enough, by this era, that two different styles could compete for the same market. Neo-classicism was characterized by faithful study (and copy) of the classics, combined with the use of elements brought to light by the new science of archaeology. Romanticism, on the other hand, defied easy characterization. It was more of an attitude, one made acceptable by the Enlightenment and dawning of social consciousness. Of the two, Romanticism had far more impact on the course of art from this time forward.
Things had loosened up enough, by this era, that two different styles could compete for the same market. Neo-classicism was characterized by faithful study (and copy) of the classics, combined with the use of elements brought to light by the new science of archaeology. Romanticism, on the other hand, defied easy characterization. It was more of an attitude, one made acceptable by the Enlightenment and dawning of social consciousness. Of the two, Romanticism had far more impact on the course of art from this time forward.
Top Opinion
-
..tisha... 2009/10/23 04:16:15Neo- Classicism
+2I'm going to have to go with Neo-Classicism, It paid homage to known classics by reinventing it rather then copying it. They were more skilled and had a stronger vision of purity then that of Romanticism that carries a haziness to it. Also Romanticism had strong ties with nationalism and political thinking... Goya and Delacroix are a strong example.
EDIT: Apparently I clicked the wrong one. Clearly, I meant to vote for romanticism.
I have nothing against Romanticism, but I find it can feel turbulent. It's easier to watch a quiet lagoon every day than a stormy sea.