‘shocking’ subject matter is not new in art, <but> a historically legitimate practice

Blue Apple

Senior Member
Persian (Iran)
Does the following text mean "Chapman brothers’ appropriations from Goya’s Disasters of War show that shocking subject matter is not new in art and has been practiced several times during the history "?

Context:
After all, ‘shocking’ subject matter is not new in art, but a historically legitimate practice, as the Chapman brothers’ appropriations from Goya’s Disasters of War demonstrate (Art and Advertising by Joan Gibbons).
 
Last edited:
  • Uncle Jack

    Senior Member
    British English
    No. Your use of "show" is wrong. 'Shocking' subject matter not being new is accepted fact, and does not need to be shown by anything. The Chapman brother's appropriations from Goya’s Disasters of War are examples of this.
     

    velisarius

    Senior Member
    British English (Sussex)
    Illustrate, demonstrate, show - all seem to me suitable verbs in that context, with roughly the same meaning.

    Perhaps it's a little confusing, as both "show" and "demonstrate" can mean "prove". It's a fine distinction, I think.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top