Houshphandzadeh wrote:

td11 wrote:art history papers are the worst. this is like 80% fluff. it's also due in, oh, one hour. FACK.

whats the topic? if I were home, I might have one lying around for you

This assignment is designed to be similar to comparisons you were set for you mid-term examination, and will have again in your final. Here, however, you will have ample time and space to develop your arguments more fully, and to write more cogently. This assignment does NOT call for research in the library beyond looking up in a bible the larger context of the scriptural passages illustrated as indicated. Other wise all of the information necessary for the paper is provided for you below. I can virtually guarantee that consulting reference sources will be more likely to hurt than help you in completing the assignment. If you do use any reference sources, you musr acknowledge that you have done so. You need not use all of the information provided for you on the assignment sheet, if it does not appear to be relevant to your argument. You may of course, and indeed should wherever relevant to your argument, refer specifically to other works of art or ideas presented in the course (both in lecture, sections, and in the reading) The focus, however, should remain squarely on the particular works to be compared.

Evaluate the style of the works and discuss the way in which the form of the individual figures and the composition as a whole contribute to the overall effectiveness of the work in conveying its message. Try to decide why these works are being compared, thinking about and answering this question will help you to focus. For example, does the comparison tell us anything about the characteristic attitudes of different periods, or about different approaches to a subject? Consider especially the aspects of the event that the artist has chosen to emphasize in each case, if there is a narrative involved (as with the crucifixion images) and also what has been omitted if that seems to you significant, then analyze the effect of these inclusions and omissions upon the character of the work. Do the works concentrate on the emotional aspects of the story? Which of the two can be said to be more historical, and why (considering what “historical” means in this context)? Try to determine the objective of each artist, the meaning of the work, then attempt to relate the meaning to the formal devices employed in its execution. Other questions which you might wish to consider: Is there an apparent symbolic significance or reference to other scenes or types of images? Is a setting established, and if so, how does the setting affect the interpretation of the event? How is the viewer supposed to react or relate to the work? Does the artist seek to establish a particular mood? How does the material of which the work is made affect the mood or meaning?

td11 wrote:And kolkata is calcutta.

phatj wrote:

td11 wrote:And kolkata is calcutta.

That one at least has some phonetic similarity. I think I picked up on it fairly recently, but I had never heard of the Bombay to Mumbai change until reading this thread just now.

cartersDad26 wrote:I am having fencing installed soon around my entire backyard, seems a random thing to do in December, but you can get a great deal doing it off season. I am pleasantly surprised by the quotes I got - I had absolutely no clue what to expect.
I am also renovating my basement to be ready for opening day and carve out a place for my new 42" flat screen.
giddy up.

Monkeyboy wrote:well, no going back now. I just married my fiance's CD collection with my own.

On a related note, I'm not responsible for all the Jewel CDs now contained in "my" collection.

jerseyhoya wrote:^^ Me too

What is this Calcutta name change people are speaking of? When did this happen?

td11 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:^^ Me too

What is this Calcutta name change people are speaking of? When did this happen?

happened in like '97 or something. it's the bengali way of pronouncing it, so i guess we were taking the name back (from the british), but i really like calcutta. kolkata sounds lame.

also, that's the city i was born in!