King

I must say at first I found it hard to believe that there could be such a huge difference between the types of act criticism both of these writers brought to the table. I first opened up the articleby Clement Greenberg. I got the idea that he was talking about art itself not just primarily about a few pieces of art. Then I opened the article by Holland Cotter. I was able to better get the graspof this article (run-on, need punctuation here) maybe simply because it was a lot easier to read. I however, cannot express more than enough that both of their critics are entirely on two differentends of the word critic.
When I was reading the article written by Greenberg, I honestly said to myself who does this guy think is reading this. Greenberg uses a very large set of vocabulary termsthroughout his paper. I thought he is not writing this to be read by a high school student but more of a fellow critique, of people who are in the field of art. For example the word he used extensivelythroughout his article was AVANT-GARDE AND KITSCH. Maybe I did not read the part where he defines the words. I had to look up the terms to realize what he meant. However he did make the fact thatKitsch is NOT a good form of art. The terms like the ones I mentioned are terms(need punctuation) which if the reader is paying attention at the time the right definition might be given to them, but otherthan that only a fellow critique would understand the meaning behind the words.
As I was wrapping up Greenberg the idea that I would just read the exact same words and ideas he had brought to thetable again in the next article but I was wrong. Cotter seems like when he wrote he wrote for the purpose of writing for an audience that just might include high school students. He did not use bizarreart terms that readers would have to look up to understand the sentence completely. He communicated clearly and directly, managing to make circles around the situation and that ultimately helps the...