> Expressionism, 1905
> Futurism, 1909
> Constructivism, 1913
> World War I, 1914
Was degeneration of art followed by the great war that destroyed the old Europe World forever mere coincidence?
I wouldn't call it degeneration, but yes, much of early 20th century art was the product of everyone getting back from the war and deciding that they didn't give a hot shit about the established way of things, considering the established way of things led to Europe getting levelled.
And a bunch of them were likely working through their PTSD as well.
>>1428886
Shit, I totally misread the OP.
>did new art which was caused by the invention of the camera cause WWI?
No, you fucking idiot
>>1428824
>degeneration
Anon, please. What you actually wanted to ask was "is there a connection between the major turn that the arts took in the beginning of the century and World War I ?" The answer is yes, history and art always connected.
In this case, it was because of the accesibility of the camera and a general distaste for anything that was associated with the old establishment (that created the war).
>>1429209
>the invention of the camera completely eliminated the demand for realistic art and was the primary cause for the rise of abstraction
No, you fucking idiot.
>>1429458
He's not far off, but rather it was the proliferation and maturation of the camera that led to art depicting realistic scenes to decline.
>>1428824
Art caused ww1
No
>>1429458
Nice painting but heliogabalus was A degenerate
>>1429467
It was more like the culture of art establishment at the time was extremely heavy on ultra realistic historical scenes, and schools like impressionism rejected it and kind of opened the flood gates for crazier and crazier styles.
Photography had very little to do with it, and wasn't even considered an art until the late 19th century pictorialists imitated paintings, and even they were rejected as anything serious.
