EmilyW.R06

I wasn't quite sure but I think this article was criticizing the Cubism and Abstract Art chart. I can see why they do not think this is an adequate way to represent this information because there are many, many different factors that play into the history of art. It is not just straight forward, one dot connected with a line that's the only thing that happened to bring this art into the world. However, I do think this chart is effective. The point was not to illustrate every little detail that ever happened in the course of history in art but to show a progression through time in a general and simple broken down way. Just like in art there is some interpretation on the part of ones self that needs to go into reading this chart. I like how it's not all spelled out and it looks very elegant. It is hard to make a great jumble of arrows look elegant and I believe that this chart works.

The Reinhardt chart was also very effective. It was done in a very different style but it was directed towards a different audience and for a different purpose as well. Reinhardt's chart is playful, personal and speaks directly to people who are in his community. Someone who is not an artist would probably not fully understand this graphic which is interesting because it's done in a style that suggests that it's for the everyday person. The newspaper comic style is a style of the masses and you don't have to have studied art to understand this means of communication. This is ironic because the Barr chart is a high art chart and has the aesthetic of the high art design but it breaks down the history of art into a simple and easy to understand linear representation of art history, maybe something that anybody can understand even if they didn't study art. So the styles that the two artists use are kind of switching roles.