Art Analysis: The LA Times By Leutze, Washington
P Purpose: To inform the general public about an accurate portrayal on the historically famous painting capturing Washington crossing the Delaware with his troops displayed in New York.
A Audience: History scholars and art critics.
S Strategy: Anachronism “The Leutze painting shows the New Jersey shore clearly in the distance. But Kunstler says documents show a storm had swept in that night, bringing freezing rain, hail and snow that would have cut the visibility.” (LA Times Staff 8)
A Attitude: Critical, formal, judgemental.
F Fallacy: Hasty Generalization “The most obvious is that Washington would not have used the earliest Stars-and-Stripes flag that appears in the Leutze work; it wasn’t adopted until 1777.” (LA Times Staff 6)
E Ethos: The LA Times is …show more content…
During the time, Washington was leader of the Continental Army against the British in the Revolutionary War. The war was a tremendous mark in separating the colonies from Britain corresponding to perhaps why Leutze decided to portray Washington in such a manner. Although historians aspire for accurate details it is important to consider why the painting contains these elements. Kunstler desired to portray the historical accuracies, in which he does have that right to do so. The actual event was rather grim, the Continental Army lacked proper supplies, the weather conditions were gloomy, and the main piece being the American flag was not created until years later. However, if an individual takes it upon themselves to recreate a historical painting, should every inaccurate painting be redone as well? Personally, I do believe it is okay to recreate the paintings as long as the original is still presented as well. This way would be more beneficial for educational reasoning to acknowledge why an artist chooses to portray the event as they did and what the event should have actually looked
A Audience: History scholars and art critics.
S Strategy: Anachronism “The Leutze painting shows the New Jersey shore clearly in the distance. But Kunstler says documents show a storm had swept in that night, bringing freezing rain, hail and snow that would have cut the visibility.” (LA Times Staff 8)
A Attitude: Critical, formal, judgemental.
F Fallacy: Hasty Generalization “The most obvious is that Washington would not have used the earliest Stars-and-Stripes flag that appears in the Leutze work; it wasn’t adopted until 1777.” (LA Times Staff 6)
E Ethos: The LA Times is …show more content…
During the time, Washington was leader of the Continental Army against the British in the Revolutionary War. The war was a tremendous mark in separating the colonies from Britain corresponding to perhaps why Leutze decided to portray Washington in such a manner. Although historians aspire for accurate details it is important to consider why the painting contains these elements. Kunstler desired to portray the historical accuracies, in which he does have that right to do so. The actual event was rather grim, the Continental Army lacked proper supplies, the weather conditions were gloomy, and the main piece being the American flag was not created until years later. However, if an individual takes it upon themselves to recreate a historical painting, should every inaccurate painting be redone as well? Personally, I do believe it is okay to recreate the paintings as long as the original is still presented as well. This way would be more beneficial for educational reasoning to acknowledge why an artist chooses to portray the event as they did and what the event should have actually looked