Discussion 7

     I always enjoy discussions on what is widely held as high and low art. It is truly an interesting topic of discussion. It seems to me that ideas of high and low art are obviously subject to variation in individual taste, yet art history seems to try, desperately, to define what is worthy of high praise and what is not worthy of scholarly approval.
     It seems to me, that in the world of art history, everything that is a departure from classicism before the 19th century is considered a digression from what is true, beautiful, and worth high praise. Antiquity always seems to be what artists and scholars alike come back to over and over again. Although I can recognize and appreciate what the ancients did as incredible, beautiful and true in their own rite, I believe that variations from antiquity such as Mannerism are an evolution.
     Mannerism departs from classicism by glorifying color, putting figures in various positions, and departing from anatomical accuracy. This all contributes to the idea of art for arts' sake. This is an important issue to my research project because Veronese was often accused of digressing from the spirituality of his subjects.
     Mannerism offers us a unique approach at anatomy. While artist's incorporated all the knowledge of antiquity, they also invented their own mode of artistic and spiritual expression that should be valued as an artistic evolution subsequent to antiquity rather than a problematic digression from accuracy.