This article was written in 2014, possibly an era in the art world that curated less paintings. Now that it has been mentioned, I have seen less and less painting in galleries. While walking through San Francisco, my family and I tend to stop at as many galleries as we can find. Most of the time, there are sculptures and photographs there, maybe a few paintings. I have noticed the significant decrease in paintings being sold by professional artists. Is it possible that sculptures and photographs are becoming the art work of choice?

Since art speaks to many of us, maybe it was not enough to just view the art in the gallery, but taking it home would have been better. Or, maybe what she is trying to say is that the art pieces were few and far between because of the economics. The artists could have possibly not been making enough to produce art so there was not much to look at.

Storr was clearly thinking ahead, but I wonder if this is his way of saying; "I know Paris will be destroyed so here is how we can make it better than before." Maybe Storr was unhappy with Paris or the way Paris was built. Maybe the architecture was not up to his standards and this gave him an opportunity to rebuild.

Was Warhol so well known that he no longer had to sign his name to art? I assume his mother has the same last name as him, so if she signed it, wouldn't it still say Warhol? I at first got a sense that Warhol liked the fame, but am now getting the impression he does not care about it.

This quote really stood out to me because a little bit earlier in the reading, they mentioned how Warhol was nick-named Drella because of his two personalities similar to those of Dracula and Cinderella. So, by this quote are the emphasizing that Warhol and his art work are completely separate? Was Warhol a different person outside of his work?

The Brillo Soap Pads Box sculpture was one that was on the, I believe, postmodernism slides and lecture. The wording of this phrase confused me because I was not sure if Warhol had made the Brillo sculpture or if he had just viewed it. After reading it many times, I quickly realized it was Warhol's. This quote clearly shows Warhol's emotions, how he was feeling like an outsider until he had his big break, then he no longer felt left out.

This sentence gives a clear definition to they way deconstruction works. It is in a way similar to recent events that are exposing big companies and celebrities for their unethical doings.

This quote exemplifies the dynamic between Postmodernism and Modernism because before Einstein's theory of relativity, there was Newtons law and most people went by that until something new came out. This is just like Postmodernism and Modernism. Most artists styled their paintings in the modernism way until Postmodernism started to rise.

It's interesting to see how Postmodernism has such a defined definition and is easily identifiable but Modernism is hard to define. That is even though Postmodernism came from Modernism, we still can not define it perfectly.

To me, it seems as though this is stating that art no longer needs to hide behind meaning. It simply is what it is. Artists of today do not need to have an explanation for their art.

To me this seems like it is the beginning of the use for different objects inserted into art. This statement reminds me of the piece shown in one of the lectures that had sand on it to provide texture.

I am puzzled by this statement because Pollock had barely done any work in the last three years of his life. It was said that Pollock suffered a lot due to his illness. Was his death at the wrong time because after his death his art was appreciated more?

This sentence really showcases Pollock's influence on others and his attitude towards art. It shows that most people aspired to be like him and be able to paint the same kinds of meaningful art as him. The overturn of flat champagne and crockery was Pollock changing art.

I wonder if this is trying to say that being towards a certain extreme, maybe liberal or conservative, is whimsical and not properly thought out? I really cannot grasp what this means for certain.

I believe this sentence is trying to show that modernist painting do not have to all be about the now, but about what is exceptional. Art does not have to be structured like what is currently being made, but it can also be traditional.

This sentence stands out to me because I believe it resembles how many perceive art. I wonder if they might be trying to say is that art holds so much value and many people put it down and do not see its worth.

I think this sentence is explaining the purpose of modernism. I think it is trying to say that modernism is not simply a new trend but it analyses trends and modern work and corrects it to make it perfect and fitting.