Hilda Ronquillo Professor Drouin English 775.2 July, 22 2008               I propose to take a closer look at the reception of “modern” artists by the community and/or cities they worked in. We already know that such painters as Picasso and Matisse were at first given negative feedback and revered later. What then, of contemporary artists facing similar circumstances? I would like to take a look at the journals reviewed in class as well as current “modern” periodicals, and compare and contrast the reaction and reception of the “new” by the masses.               For example, I would analyze different reviews of, let’s say, the artist who smeared elephant dung on his paintings, then compare it to an artist of the early 20th century and filter through similar shocked and elitist attitudes in both magazines. (Modern and contemporary) I would look at the overall reverence for the artist, while picking apart the “What is Art?” question in both magazines. I will try to cohesively blend an acceptance and rejection theme of art across the board, and intend to prove that history always repeats itself, and that the art world is not immune to it.  In other words, where there is a new art movement (at any period of time) there is an eager audience wanting to both applaud and crucify it as well. This is the nature of Art.