a situation that only recently has begun to be re-examined

Blue Apple

Senior Member
Persian (Iran)
Is the highlighted section talking about a single situation that was experienced after war (in the recent decades) or is it talking about two situations that the first one occurred after the war and the second one, that is the repetition of the first one, occurs in the more recent times?

Context:
After the war, however, the more modern pieces gained in reputation, while the traditional compositions became virtually unknown. It was not the subject that mattered, but artistic merit, a situation that only recently has begun to be re-examined in the wake of the ongoing deconstruction of the modernist canon (Art and War by Laura Brandon).
 
  • boozer

    Senior Member
    Bulgarian
    Ultimately, the phrase tells me that these days subject begins to matter, is becoming more important than it was.

    Grammatically, I do not like the way active (has begun) and passive (to be re-examined) are combined.
     

    suzi br

    Senior Member
    English / England
    Is the highlighted section talking about a single situation that was experienced after war (in the recent decades) or is it talking about two situations that the first one occurred after the war and the second one, that is the repetition of the first one, occurs in the more recent times?

    Context:
    After the war, however, the more modern pieces gained in reputation, while the traditional compositions became virtually unknown. It was not the subject that mattered, but artistic merit, a situation that only recently has begun to be re-examined in the wake of the ongoing deconstruction of the modernist canon (Art and War by Laura Brandon).
    This is very hard to decode.

    It seems that after the war the “artistic merit” of a work was more important than its subject matter.
    Now, thanks to the “deconstruction of the modernist canon” :confused: (not really sure what THAT means) that attitude is shifting and there is more (or renewed) interest in the subjects the art depicts. I would assume that IS a repetition because I’d assume the “subject” was of immediate interest when the paintings were first done.
     

    Blue Apple

    Senior Member
    Persian (Iran)
    This is very hard to decode.

    It seems that after the war the “artistic merit” of a work was more important than its subject matter.
    Now, thanks to the “deconstruction of the modernist canon” :confused: (not really sure what THAT means) that attitude is shifting and there is more (or renewed) interest in the subjects the art depicts. I would assume that IS a repetition because I’d assume the “subject” was of immediate interest when the paintings were first done.
    So do you think it means "in that time in the past the subject was not important but in the recent times things have changed and it is the subject that is important"?
     

    suzi br

    Senior Member
    English / England
    Is the highlighted section talking about a single situation that was experienced after war (in the recent decades) or is it talking about two situations that the first one occurred after the war and the second one, that is the repetition of the first one, occurs in the more recent times?



    Context:
    After the war, however, the more modern pieces gained in reputation, while the traditional compositions became virtually unknown. It was not the subject that mattered, but artistic merit, a situation that only recently has begun to be re-examined in the wake of the ongoing deconstruction of the modernist canon (Art and War by Laura Brandon).
    So do you think it means "in that time in the past the subject was not important but in the recent times things have changed and it is the subject that is important"?
    Yes. But I also think there was a time before both of these (when they were painted) when the subject was prime.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top